On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:10:29 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500, > Larry Finger <larry.finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500, > > > > > > This would indicate that dev_uevent had been called. But how could > > > kobject_uevent then return an error without moaning about an uevent() > > > error code? Maybe the following debug patch could shed some light on > > > this (all moaning is prefixed with kobject_uevent_env, so it should be > > > easy to spot)... > > > > I applied the debug patch, but I don't see any error codes being returned. This time I also got the > > General Protection Faults. An excerpt of the log is attached. > > Hm, I think I have an idea about what happened. > > The firmware class tried to suppress the first KOBJ_ADD uevent by > returning -ENODEV in firmware_uevent if FW_STATUS_READY was not set. > This only worked as long as the return code of kobject_uevent was not > checked in device_add. hack-to-make-wireless-work.patch made that first > uevent return successfully, but this possible triggered some udev rule > too early, leading to firmware load failures. > > The following (completely untested) patch uses uevent_suppress to stop > the uevent from being generated during device_add. Does this work for > you? > > --- > drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > @@ -333,6 +333,7 @@ static int fw_register_device(struct dev > f_dev->parent = device; > f_dev->class = &firmware_class; > dev_set_drvdata(f_dev, fw_priv); > + f_dev->uevent_suppress = 1; > retval = device_register(f_dev); > if (retval) { > printk(KERN_ERR "%s: device_register failed\n", > @@ -385,6 +386,7 @@ static int fw_setup_device(struct firmwa > set_bit(FW_STATUS_READY, &fw_priv->status); > else > set_bit(FW_STATUS_READY_NOHOTPLUG, &fw_priv->status); > + f_dev->uevent_suppress = 0; > *dev_p = f_dev; > goto out; hm. Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch? If so, do you think I should labour on with uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I drop the lot? (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not sure which patch(es) need to be dropped). Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html