Hi Michael, > 2.6.19-rc3 without reverting > d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff stops receiving ACPI events after some > use (sometimes after suspend/resume, sometimes after kernel build stress). Now, > what does this tell us? Andrew, any idea? The code is related to bd_claim_by_disk which is called when device-mapper or md tries to mark the underlying devices for exclusive use and creates symlinks from/to the devices in sysfs. The patch added error handlings which weren't in the original code. I have no idea how it affects ACPI event handling. Are you using dm and/or md on your machine? Have you seen any unusual kernel messages or symptoms regarding dm/md before the ACPI problem occurs? Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Quoting r. Adrian Bunk <bunk at stusta.de>: >> Subject : T60 stops triggering any ACPI events >> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/4/425 >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/16/262 >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7408 >> Submitter : "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at mellanox.co.il> >> Status : unknown > > OK, I spent half a night with git-bisect, and the patch that triggers this issue > seems to be this: > > commit d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff > Author: Andrew Morton <akpm at osdl.org> > [PATCH] blockdev.c: check driver layer errors > > Reset to d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff seems to hide part of the issue > (I have ACPI after kernel build, but not after suspend/resume). Both reverting > this patch, and reset to the parent of this patch seem to solve (or at least, > hide) both problems for me (no ACPI after suspend/resume and no ACPI after > kernel build). > > I am currently running on 2.6.19-rc3 minus > d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff, and in a full day of use I have not > observed any issues yet. 2.6.19-rc3 without reverting > d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff stops receiving ACPI events after some > use (sometimes after suspend/resume, sometimes after kernel build stress). Now, > what does this tell us? Andrew, any idea? > > > Martin, could you test whether reverting this helps you, too, by chance? > Here's a patch to apply for testing this. > > --- > > commit 658488b7577b7b2242372c43f081f55e2d274615 > Author: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at mellanox.co.il> > Date: Mon Oct 30 01:28:40 2006 +0200 > > Revert "[PATCH] blockdev.c: check driver layer errors" > > This reverts commit 4d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff. Thanks, -- Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation of America
