On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:09:26PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> > >> On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:55:26PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote: > >>>>>> Warning message triggered with 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc21.x86_64. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [ 10.886016] applesmc: key count changed from 261 to 1174405121 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Explains the crash, but the new key count is very wrong. 1174405121 = 0x46000001. > >>>>> Which I guess explains the subsequent memory allocation error in the log. > >>>>> > >>>>> Henrik, any idea what might be going on ? Is it possible that the previous > >>>>> command failure leaves some state machine in a bad state ? > >>>> > >>>> I seem to recall a report on another similar state problem on newer > >>>> machines, so maybe, yes. Older machines seem fine, I have never > >>>> encountered the problem myself. Here is a patch to test that > >>>> theory. It has been tested to be pretty harmless on two different > >>>> generations. > >>>> > >>>> I really really do not want to add an 'if (value is insane)' check ;-) > >>>> > >>> Chris, > >>> > >>> any chance you can load this patch on an affected machine so we can get > >>> test feedback ? This one is too experimental to submit upstream without > >>> knowing that it really fixes the problem. > >> > >> Yes. What kernel.org source version should I apply it against? I'd use the non-debug config file from an equivalent version Fedora kernel, unless asked otherwise. And also should I test it on other vintages? I have here MBP4,1(2008); MBP8,2(2011), and MBP10,2(2012). > >> > > Only requirement is that it also includes the previous patch, so it would be > > optimal if you can apply it on top of the previous image. > > Patch added on top of 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc20.x86_64 and built. But after ~dozen reboots, I'm not triggering the problem. The only items in dmesg with smc in it: > > [ 13.799819] applesmc: key=261 fan=2 temp=14 index=14 acc=1 lux=2 kbd=1 > [ 13.833402] input: applesmc as /devices/platform/applesmc.768/input/input10 > Hi Chris, That only means that you did not hit the problem. There may be some secondary trigger (cold boot ? coffee on the cpu ?). One thing I have seen in all logs is the earlier "send_byte fail" message, so I think that is a pre-requisite. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
