The problem is that cdc_acm calls a "softirq-only" routine
in a hardirq context. See this patch:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=106764585001038&w=2
It's not clear that'll make it into 2.6.0-final.
- Dave
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 09:21:59AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> The problem is that cdc_acm calls a "softirq-only" routine
> in a hardirq context. See this patch:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=106764585001038&w=2
>
> It's not clear that'll make it into 2.6.0-final.
I've not planned to submit it for 2.6.0 as it's a relativly big change,
and I don't have the hardware to test it out. Anyone have any other
thoughts about this?
thanks,
greg k-h
>>The problem is that cdc_acm calls a "softirq-only" routine
>>in a hardirq context. See this patch:
>>
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=106764585001038&w=2
>>
>>It's not clear that'll make it into 2.6.0-final.
>
>
> I've not planned to submit it for 2.6.0 as it's a relativly big change,
> and I don't have the hardware to test it out. Anyone have any other
> thoughts about this?
Doesn't seem big to me. It could be shrunk a smidgeon, but
that's the version that's gotten the positive test results.
The folk who have this kind of hardware have reported this
happening for quite a few months now, and it does seem to
fill up log buffers with catastrophic-seeming stack traces.
Colin, does it fix your problem? Can you eke more than
twenty minutes from your laptop battery now? :)
- Dave
On 10 Nov 2003 at 04h21, David Brownell wrote:
Hi,
>>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=106764585001038&w=2
> Colin, does it fix your problem? Can you eke more than
> twenty minutes from your laptop battery now? :)
That works great :-)
Many thanks for the pointer. I think it'd be nice if this was in 2.6.0 :)
--
Colin
http://www.colino.net/