On 05/10/2012 02:09 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 05/10/2012 02:06 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 05/09/2012 12:31 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> For me, next-20120508 prints nothing when booted, and I think also >>>> hangs. To solve this, I reverted: >>>> >>>> 7ff9554 printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length record buffer >>>> >>>> In order to build, I also had to revert: >>>> >>>> c4e00da driver-core: extend dev_printk() to pass structured data >>>> >>>> Note: I'm running on an ARM system using a serial console, with >>>> earlyprintk enabled. >>> >>> This issue still occurs in next-20120510. >>> >>> I've tracked it down to the assignment of msg->ts_nsec near the end of >>> log_store(). If I comment this out, everything works. The problem is the >>> assignment, not the call to local_clock(): >>> >>> fails: >>> msg->ts_nsec = local_clock(); >>> fails: >>> msg->ts_nsec = 0;//local_clock(); >>> works: >>> //msg->ts_nsec = local_clock(); >> >> Weird. >> >> What happens if you change it to: >> cpu_clock(logbuf_cpu); >> ? >> >> If it works, the timestamps look ok? > > I doubt that would work - after all, assigning 0 fails, but not > performing the assignment at all works. But, I'll go try it... Calling cpu_clock() instead of local_clock() fails in the same way. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
