Linux 2.4.25-rc4

Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Marcelo Tosatti]

Hi,

Here goes release candidate 4, including a few small fixes.

If nothing bad shows up, this will become final.


Summary of changes from v2.4.25-rc3 to v2.4.25-rc4
============================================

<davem:nuts.davemloft.net>:
  o [SPARC64]: Fix build with sysctl disabled

<marcelo:logos.cnet>:
  o Changed EXTRAVERSION to -rc4

Andrea Arcangeli:
  o Return proper do_munmap() error code

Hideaki Yoshifuji:
  o [NETFILTER]: Better verification of TCP header len in ip{,6}_tables.c

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Marcelo,

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:11:24AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Here goes release candidate 4, including a few small fixes.
> 
> If nothing bad shows up, this will become final.

Well, I would have liked to see the ACPI poweroff fix I sent a few days ago,
but Len said he doesn't have time to review it this week. It's a shame since
at least two of my machines which powered off correctly with very older ACPI
versions now need it, so I don't think I'm the only one in this case :-(

Other than that, I'm fairly happy with at least -rc2 (not tested latest
releases yet).

Cheers,
Willy

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> Hi Marcelo,
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:11:24AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Here goes release candidate 4, including a few small fixes.
> >
> > If nothing bad shows up, this will become final.
>
> Well, I would have liked to see the ACPI poweroff fix I sent a few days ago,
> but Len said he doesn't have time to review it this week. It's a shame since
> at least two of my machines which powered off correctly with very older ACPI
> versions now need it, so I don't think I'm the only one in this case :-(
>
> Other than that, I'm fairly happy with at least -rc2 (not tested latest
> releases yet).

Hi Willy,

Your fix looks ok. I dont think calling acpi_system_save_state(S5) can
cause any breakage. Len?

We can test the patch in 2.4.26-pre1.

Thanks

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Willy Tarreau]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 11:34:54AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Your fix looks ok. I dont think calling acpi_system_save_state(S5) can
> cause any breakage. Len?
> 
> We can test the patch in 2.4.26-pre1.

OK, Thanks Marcelo.
Willy

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:11:24AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > Here goes release candidate 4, including a few small fixes.
> > >
> > > If nothing bad shows up, this will become final.
> >
> > Well, I would have liked to see the ACPI poweroff fix I sent a few days ago,
> > but Len said he doesn't have time to review it this week. It's a shame since
> > at least two of my machines which powered off correctly with very older ACPI
> > versions now need it, so I don't think I'm the only one in this case :-(
> >
> > Other than that, I'm fairly happy with at least -rc2 (not tested latest
> > releases yet).
> 
> Hi Willy,
> 
> Your fix looks ok. I dont think calling acpi_system_save_state(S5) can
> cause any breakage. Len?

I bet it will create "machine will reboot instead of poweroff" on some
strange machine.... Perhaps it fixes more machines than it breaks, but
it will probably break some.
								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Pavel,

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 11:48:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 
> > Your fix looks ok. I dont think calling acpi_system_save_state(S5) can
> > cause any breakage. Len?
> 
> I bet it will create "machine will reboot instead of poweroff" on some
> strange machine.... Perhaps it fixes more machines than it breaks, but
> it will probably break some.

This is interesting. Do you have an idea about what could break exactly ?
In my case, I have noticed two things :
  - if I disable local APIC, the standard code works
  - if I enable local APIC, I need the patch above.

So perhaps it would be enough to disable local APIC instead of calling this
function ?

BTW, I have retested on the Supermicro server which didn't want to stop
previously. It's a P4 HT. Interestingly, with the new code, it displays :
  Power Down
  Trying to free free IRQ 23

IRQ 23 is assigned to eth0 (e1000). If I rmmod e1000 before, then it stops
correctly. And if I boot it with 'nosmp', it stops correcly both with new
and older code.

So I suspect that sending PM events is not exactly SMP safe, and that this
system cannot power off in SMP for an unknown reason. Perhaps as with APM,
some parts of the code need to be executed by CPU0 only ? Or perhaps when
I booted with 'nosmp', APIC was disabled ? (I didn't notice particularly).

I can do tests on my notebook, but I'm mainly lacking ideas now. I will
try to disable APIC only, just in case. And if it doesn't work on the
P4 HT, I can try to stop every CPU>0. If we don't find an universal solution,
it might indicate that we need another boot option to adapt to different
hardware :-(

Regards,
Willy

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > Your fix looks ok. I dont think calling acpi_system_save_state(S5) can
> > > cause any breakage. Len?
> > 
> > I bet it will create "machine will reboot instead of poweroff" on some
> > strange machine.... Perhaps it fixes more machines than it breaks, but
> > it will probably break some.
> 
> This is interesting. Do you have an idea about what could break
> exactly ?

No, but this is ACPI. No matter how simple change looks, it will break
something.

> In my case, I have noticed two things :
>   - if I disable local APIC, the standard code works
>   - if I enable local APIC, I need the patch above.
> 
> So perhaps it would be enough to disable local APIC instead of calling this
> function ?

Hmm.. that means we need APIC driver model...
									Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Hilko Bengen]

Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:

> Here goes release candidate 4, including a few small fixes.
>
> If nothing bad shows up, this will become final.

I would have liked the I-Surf fix to be included that I sent to you
and to this list. 

Ok, the bug has been there for ages and, being an ISA card, the I-Surf
is probably not used that much any more... Was there anything wrong
with the patch I sent?

-Hilko

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Hilko Bengen wrote:

> Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:
>
> > Here goes release candidate 4, including a few small fixes.
> >
> > If nothing bad shows up, this will become final.
>
> I would have liked the I-Surf fix to be included that I sent to you
> and to this list.
>
> Ok, the bug has been there for ages and, being an ISA card, the I-Surf
> is probably not used that much any more... Was there anything wrong
> with the patch I sent?

I dont think so. I will be in 2.4.26-pre1

Re: Linux 2.4.25-rc4

[Hilko Bengen]

Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:

>> Ok, the bug has been there for ages and, being an ISA card, the
>> I-Surf is probably not used that much any more... Was there
>> anything wrong with the patch I sent?
>
> I dont think so. I will be in 2.4.26-pre1

Thanks.

There was also another patch which I posted earlier to this list. 

It fixes an issue with iomem being displayed wrong in /proc/isapnp
output. I found this when trying to debug the isurf issue.

Please include that also.

-Hilko

diff -uir orig/linux-2.4.23/drivers/pnp/isapnp_proc.c linux-2.4.24/drivers/pnp/isapnp_proc.c
--- orig/linux-2.4.23/drivers/pnp/isapnp_proc.c	2002-11-29 00:53:14.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.4.24/drivers/pnp/isapnp_proc.c	2004-02-06 14:56:45.000000000 +0100
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@
 	if (next)
 		isapnp_printf(buffer, "\n");
 	for (i = next = 0; i < 4; i++) {
-		tmp = isapnp_read_dword(ISAPNP_CFG_MEM + (i << 3));
+		tmp = isapnp_read_word(ISAPNP_CFG_MEM + (i << 3)) << 8;
 		if (!tmp)
 			continue;
 		if (!next) {