On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Kirill Smelkov <kirr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 05:19:20PM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: >> Hello Chris, everyone, >> >> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 04:40:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:23:53 -0400, "Luke-Jr" <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:41:45 AM Chris Wilson wrote: >> > > > On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee <ray-lk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > > [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael >> > > > > Wysocki to the message ] >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > > > I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month >> > > > > > ago against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the >> > > > > > regression being addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some >> > > > > > guys on IRC suggested I >> > > > > > email, so here it is. >> > > > > >> > > > > See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history. >> > > > >> > > > Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things >> > > > that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh >> > > > on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up >> > > > netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath? >> > > >> > > Why assume it's a different bug? I would almost wonder if it might affect >> > > all Sandy Bridge GPUs. In any case, I no longer have the original >> > > motherboard (it was recalled, as I said in the first post), nor even the >> > > revision of it (it had other issues that weren't being fixed). I *assume* I >> > > will have the same problem with my new motherboard (Intel DQ67SW), but I >> > > haven't verified that yet. I'll be sure to try a netconsole when I have to >> > > reboot next and get a chance to try the most recent 2.6.38 and .39 kernels, >> > > but at the moment it seems reasonable to address the problem bisected in the >> > > bug, even if it turns out to be different. >> > >> > The bisection is into an old DRI1 bug on 945GM. That DRI has inadequate >> > locking between release and IRQ and so is prone to such races as befell >> > Kirill should not surprise anyone. As neither UMS nor DRI supported SNB, >> > I can quite confidently state they are separate bugs. >> > -Chris >> >> I see DRI1 is maybe buggy and old, but still, pre-kms X used to work ok >> on kernels < 2.6.38, and starting from 2.6.38 the system is just >> unusable because X either crashes the kernel (2.6.38), or does not start >> at all (2.6.39): >> >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36052 >> >> >> It's a regression. It's blocking me to upgrade to newer kernels. I've >> done my homework -- digged it and came with detailed OOPS on netconsole >> and bisected to single commit. Could this please be fixed? > > Silence... > > Still, reverting the bisected patch helps even for 3.0: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36052#c4 Keith, Chris, what's up with this regression from 2.6.38? It seems commit e8616b6 ("drm/i915: Initialise ring vfuncs for old DRI paths") caused problems on other machines. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
