Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756253AbYGMUsi (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755176AbYGMUsa (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:30 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.168]:50028 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755035AbYGMUs3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:29 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=bQoCgpFJQc+E+E5Q/Pyg7Q5EEEVrN32G42PDymp4QoAy5MY5N1TDxUhBWMkIK5wJz/ YiBJfkk4YdjjLPlWO7ydPgccbttnwnwQJOcOFZv4/Od9IWMeey9BDnqKHimo8R4e0eBX g8AgptLvo6tRBUQP9j+N7HrS1CeMhTyaLhuh0= Message-ID: <19f34abd0807131348s5e211ebdk1faa5c32ef04f1cf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:48:26 +0200 From: "Vegard Nossum" To: "Hugh Dickins" Subject: Re: [Bug #10724] ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE Cc: "Justin Mattock" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Kernel Testers List" , "Alexey Starikovskiy" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <19f34abd0807131252k5499e6e2sc93f8cd70f488b7e@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1864 Lines: 43 On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: >> I didn't follow the discussion, but I may contribute the following information: >> >> This message first appears in my logs on May 16. That was with kernel >> version 2.6.24.5-85.fc8. The kernel I used before that was >> 2.6.24.4-64.fc8 (May 3). My logs go back to November 8 >> (2.6.23.1-42.fc8). So we can hardly consider this a regression since >> 2.6.25, but rather one since 2.6.24? >> >> (I'll also note that this message appears quite infrequently here. >> Only 42 times in 219 boot-ups. So it would be hard to bisect, but I'm >> guessing the error was introduced somewhere between 2.6.24.4 and >> 2.6.24.5.) > > You're comparing against Fedora kernels, which often contain > patches which haven't got into mainline yet. As in this case. > Unless it used to be assembled from separate pieces, there was > no "GPE storm detected" message in 2.6.24.N or 2.6.25.N: it was > added in 2.6.26-rc1. > > I sometimes see it too, on a Fujitsu-Siemens laptop. Oh, right. So what exactly is the bug here? That the message appears at all? Or is there another specific change that would cause the warning to trigger once added? Or why do we have bugzilla entries for broken hardware? Is there anything I can do to help the situation as the owner of a machine which exhibits the problem? Thanks for the info :-) Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/