![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: >>> At Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:28:22 -0700, >>> Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:05:21 +0200 >>>> Edgar Kalkowski <eMail@edgar-kalkowski.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Dear kernel hackers. ;) >>>> > >>>> > [1.] One line summary of the problem: If I unplug my USB-Headset the kernel oopses. >>>> >>>> cc's added. >>>> >>>> Might be USB, might be ALSA. >>> >>> Hm, it's hard to guess... >>> Edgar, could you check whether it happens with 2.6.25? >> >> Hi, >> >> I recognize this address: >> >>>>> BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 00100100 >> >> Is this a magic value? I also got it, see for example: >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/8/21/426 >> >> Google will also recognize it: >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="unable+to+handle+kernel+paging+request"+00100100 >> >> Where does it come from? > > Oh. It _is_ LIST_POISON1. Sorry for the bit of noise. Probably totally unrelated, but I couldn't help to find this bit of code somewhat odd. In snd_ctl_dev_disconnect(): down_read(&card->controls_rwsem); list_for_each_entry(ctl, &card->ctl_files, list) { wake_up(&ctl->change_sleep); kill_fasync(&ctl->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_ERR); } up_read(&card->controls_rwsem); ...shouldn't that be using &card->ctl_files_rwlock instead of &card->controls_rwsem? That one is always used to protect the list ops on &card->ctl_files in all the other places. Or maybe it is already locked from higher ups? Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-09-05 10:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||