From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754018AbYHLO1I (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:27:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752139AbYHLO04 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:26:56 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:33000 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946AbYHLO0z (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:26:55 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Remove WARN_ON from device_pm_add Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:29:52 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: Greg KH , Alan Stern , Andrew Morton , LKML , pm list , "Michael S. Tsirkin" References: <200808090105.14770.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080812125902.GB13910@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> In-Reply-To: <20080812125902.GB13910@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808121629.53425.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, 12 of August 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 01:05:13AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > PM: Remove WARN_ON from device_pm_add > > > > Fix message in device_pm_add() saying that the device will not be > > added to dpm_list, although in fact the device is going to be added > > to the list regardless of the ordering violation. > > > > Remove the WARN_ON(true) triggered in that situation, because it is > > hit by USB very often and spams the users' logs. > > > > This patch fixes bug #11263 > > Michael Tsirkin said in #11284 (which is marked as a duplicate of #11263): > > <-- snip --> > > > What exactly is this instability? > > X often crashes on resume, sometimes ACPI seems to stop working > after resume. I am trying to figure exact way to reproduce first, > or get some relevant logs, then I'll report. > > > Does 2.6.26 work fine? > > yes > > <-- snip --> > > > Is this a separate regression or did the WARN_ON different from the > first assumption indicate a functional regression? No, it doesn't indicate a functional regression. In 2.6.26 the WARN_ON() was artificially silenced by USB, but that stopped working after the PM core had changed in 2.6.27-rc. Thanks, Rafael