From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C66C15A480; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713979894; cv=none; b=O2kbuNxlRXzHckPsMtfs9JnUFYbqMDSiSby4xfDjnkAD+VNf1gSvjPyUgST2s+edcwJt0PmG+Ds94uYIlbWr0M+sLXr9gUAoZxwpNOypkqBReKQMWB2OwqZSrZvlDQk2H1jyCZMeHgIeuUqkKZpRIozosrV2hIaXLHK0MD+xE2w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713979894; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rXO3sEX01JpfgsKRjjf3oJK0CYpvvHHrNEzGfMNAC1U=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=B/wDtb726aMGxNRmuSgr83r/BQQeNpFCEKp4UCKelQ94PWjIFvFXTv43OkpdnewQek0fCMjjuSyTgGJPh0e5w+vT61lYvREV3uugvWPhZGJa12WX2MEFWndY/hSBXWn2w9d5U4FQ+JXd1YzIG6UM33oBQxggIWZhKuMPEuLPCWY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=ZISOdoRM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="ZISOdoRM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=PjkRDjS5p+wbHqIhSv+aLp0kv1BX9+QFVr8INC/8Zrs=; t=1713979892; x=1715189492; b=ZISOdoRMMfqWwAXNwhvadpwN5DzLUfDuTy4Pfw0TUWEQjlo Wqkz9AkoR5LhSuOZ6pdRJoVp3s8uCHIE1398a3uxZjJ0r0LBW8DXK3YPac1h9AkNe5RObkS4sZnx4 MApKBDDZcmsT7gj75ybjmmLZTdTf5y7bq4LK7/XPE/BtlSFzVP+CqJu2Mc2AVcnwBaycOfVVncnuT ZRKMPrdrUrzuWBYJnFcT07Bcf+mw+1tuLxre1h1noRqwwuJZdfYevAz00xO1YKhTXRA0XNx4c4VS3 AdPqM836Smk9Tu2ZhLWLWlnRlryEEcyQkevAEgeWFCnnkcyayPy+tVNx1lsbj/Jw==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rzgSu-00000003mBY-3LwP; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:31:28 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6.9.0-rc2+ kernel hangs on boot (bisected, maybe LED related) From: Johannes Berg To: Ben Greear , Linux regressions mailing list , Lee Jones Cc: LKML , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, Miri Korenblit Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:31:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <6eba2967-e2de-d9f1-3794-01cf4e88c56c@candelatech.com> References: <30f757e3-73c5-5473-c1f8-328bab98fd7d@candelatech.com> <30819e01-43ce-638f-0cc6-067d6a8d03c7@candelatech.com> <89a9eec3-337f-3c9f-6bbe-00a26a15287c@candelatech.com> <20240411070718.GD6194@google.com> <8736ebc8881e1e0cabfbbf033725a3123a5e8e90.camel@sipsolutions.net> <8ab88be5de30bcbd0d1cac3cfde6b2085dcfc8fb.camel@sipsolutions.net> <0197efe8-828b-43ae-85c9-5d521913a289@leemhuis.info> <6eba2967-e2de-d9f1-3794-01cf4e88c56c@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned Hi Ben, On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 10:26 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >=20 > This patch makes the problem go away in my testbed with 24 Intel > iwlwifi radios. My guess is that it is just papering over the problem, Agree, there seems to be some locking issue with LED stuff, but I'm not sure where, and the driver doesn't even hold any locks here. > but maybe good enough? For all I care, yes. We explicitly do this last, from a worker that holds no locks in the driver ... so it's odd. Looking at the history of it, it seems that it was originally _nowait(), but then in 3.6 I changed it because of some backport concerns. Though then I also moved it out of the locked section. > Would you like me to submit as official > patch to linux-wireless? Sure. johannes