Re: [Bug 7505] Linux-2.6.18 fails to boot on AMD64 machine

[Stefano Takekawa <take@libero.it>]

Il giorno ven, 22/12/2006 alle 00.30 -0800, Andrew Morton ha scritto:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:22:48 +0100
> Ard -kwaak- van Breemen <ard@telegraafnet.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:41:46PM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > I think parse_args enables irq when it calls callbacks.
> > > Could you try below?
> > > 1) Test Andrew's patch of sema down_write;
> > > 2) Apply below patch and see what the output is when booting. If the output has
> > > "[BUG]..address.", Pls. map the address to function name by System.map.
> > Without proof^H^H^H^H^Hpasting my dmesg and the "diff", I already
> > concluded that ide_setup was the culprit. (I've debuged
> > parse_one, and it barfed around the 3rd parameter which is
> > hdb=noprobe).
> > Anyway, a bad night of sleep reminds me that our EM64T boxes also
> > have this line (which actually is a remainder of our VA1220 boxes
> > ;-) ), and they don't barf, so it must be either the combination
> > of the sata_nv together with the pata driver part, *or* just the
> > pata driver part. (Our opteron != nforce chipsets also works).
> > 
> 
> I expect that you'll find that the ide code ends up doing
> down_write(pci_bus_sem), which will enable interrupts.
> 
> (We don't know which interrupt is pending this early - that'd be
> interesting to find out, but we shouldn't be enabling interrupts in there).
> 
> To whom do I have to pay how much to get this darn patch tested?
> 
> 
> 
> --- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c~down_write-preserve-local-irqs
> +++ a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
> @@ -195,13 +195,14 @@ void fastcall __sched __down_write_neste
>  {
>  	struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
>  	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
>  
>  	if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
>  		/* granted */
>  		sem->activity = -1;
> -		spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -216,7 +217,7 @@ void fastcall __sched __down_write_neste
>  	list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
>  
>  	/* we don't need to touch the semaphore struct anymore */
> -	spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
>  
>  	/* wait to be given the lock */
>  	for (;;) {
> _
> 
Applied to 2.6.19 it doesn't change anything. It still panics.

How can I have something similar to a serial console on a laptop without
serial port but with a parallel one? Will netconsole work?



-- 
Stefano Takekawa
take@libero.it

Frank:  And why do days get longer in the summer?
Ernest: Because heat makes things expand!