Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:37:57 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: Panic in pci_call_probe from 2.6.18-mm2 and 2.6.18-mm3 |
| |
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:07:39PM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > Martin Bligh wrote: > > Badari Pulavarty wrote: > >> On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 00:02 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> > >>> Not sure if you've seen this already ... catching up on test results. > >>> > >>> This was on NUMA-Q, on both -mm2 and -mm3. -mm1 didn't suffer from this > >>> problem. > >>> > >>> Full logs: > >>> > >>> mm2 - http://test.kernel.org/abat/50727/debug/console.log > >>> mm3 - http://test.kernel.org/abat/51442/debug/console.log > >>> > >>> config - http://test.kernel.org/abat/51442/build/dotconfig > >>> > >>> I'm guessing from the 00000004 that the pcibus_to_node(dev->bus) > >>> is failing because bus->sysdata is NULL. The disassembly and > >>> structure offsets seem to line up for that. > >>> > >>> #define pcibus_to_node(bus) ( > >>> (struct pci_sysdata *)((bus)->sysdata))->node > >>> > >>> struct pci_sysdata { > >>> int domain; /* PCI domain */ > >>> int node; /* NUMA node */ > >>> }; > >>> > >> > >> > >> Martin, > >> > >> Jeff moved "node" to a proper field in sysdata, instead > >> of overloading sysdata itself. I think this is causing the > >> problem. I guess we could end up with sysdata = NULL in some > >> cases ? Since you are the NUMA-Q expert, where does sysdata gets set > >> for NUMA-Q ? :) > >> > >> -mm2 changed: > >> > >> #define pcibus_to_node(bus) ((long) (bus)->sysdata) > >> > >> to > >> #define pcibus_to_node(bus) ((struct pci_sysdata *)((bus)->sysdata))- > >> > >>> node > > > > Buggered if I know, that's some strange pci thing ;-) > > > > But can we revert whatever patch that was until it gets fixed, please? > > Unless I am going very very mad, this has came up once before some > months ago. We went through lots of pain finding the cause of this for > NUMA-Q and fixing it. Something about not having a sysdata and needing > to initialise it. > > Thought so, this was all discussed back in December 2005. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/20/226 > > I'll go see if I can forward port the patch and address the remaining > issues with it.
Yes, and I explicitly asked if this issue had been addressed again in these patches. That is why I rejected them oh so long ago...
bleah.
greg k-h - 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/
| |