Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:54846 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752757AbXCXFHD (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:07:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Larry Finger , Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Monakhov Dmitriy Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 Message-Id: <20070323210618.6a41f5da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070323111029.4089ccfb@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20070319205623.299d0378.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1174433034.62033.16.camel@localhost> <20070320223643.d8cbc3f6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4601761F.4000302@lwfinger.net> <20070321185900.GC3801@tuxdriver.com> <20070321202225.GN10459@waste.org> <20070321233917.0393dfd1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070322123508.3785fd30@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <4602752A.5050109@lwfinger.net> <20070322181019.62fe78ed@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <4602D137.4060402@lwfinger.net> <20070323111029.4089ccfb@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:10:29 +0100 Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500, > Larry Finger 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.