On Thursday 30 October 2008, Dave wrote:
> After much faffing about, I managed to bisect this. In retrospect the
> above hint (thanks Russell) and a code inspection ought to have made the
> bug obvious. The offending commit is:
>
> commit 1168386aa7d850ead2ae135d5a7949a592c6e9a0
> pcmcia: deprecate CS_OUT_OF_RESOURCE
>
> in which the following change is made (among others):
>
> @@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ int verify_cis_cache(struct pcmcia_socket *s)
>
> buf = kmalloc(256, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (buf == NULL)
> - return -1;
> + dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &s->dev,
> + "no memory for verifying CIS\n");
> + return -ENOMEM;
> list_for_each_entry(cis, &s->cis_cache, node) {
> int len = cis->len;
>
Oh, my ... I have been looking over this dozens of times ... it just
proves how addictive to bisecting in place of proper debugging we became :(
Dave, thank you!
Rafael, this falls in obvious "regression with patches" case I think.
Tested-by: Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxx>
>
> The attached patch should fix things.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave.
> ---
> pcmcia: Actually verify against the cached CIS
>
> Commit 1168386aa7d850ead2ae135d5a7949a592c6e9a0 introduced a printk into
> a single line if without adding braces, resulting in PCMCIA devices
> being added as new on resume.
>
> Add the necessary braces.
>
> Reported by: Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off by: David Kilroy <kilroyd@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c b/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c
> index 8d37768..91a00ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c
> +++ b/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c
> @@ -351,10 +351,12 @@ int verify_cis_cache(struct pcmcia_socket *s)
> char *buf;
>
> buf = kmalloc(256, GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (buf == NULL)
> + if (buf == NULL) {
> dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &s->dev,
> "no memory for verifying CIS\n");
> return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> list_for_each_entry(cis, &s->cis_cache, node) {
> int len = cis->len;
>
>
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
