Re: PROBLEM: memory corrupting bug, bisected to 6dda9d55

[pacman]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> 
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:23 -0500, pacman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > The diff fragment above applied inside prom_close_stdin, but there are
> > some
> > prom_printf calls after prom_close_stdin. Calling prom_printf after
> > closing
> > stdout sounds like it could be bad. If I moved it down below all the
> > prom_printf's, it would be after the "quiesce" call. Would that be
> > acceptable
> > (or even interesting as an experiment)? Does a close need a quiesce
> > after it?
> 
> Just try :-) "quiesce" is something that afaik only apple ever
> implemented anyways. It uses hooks inside their OF to shut down all
> drivers that do bus master (among other HW sanitization tasks).

I booted a version with a prom_close_stdout after the last prom_debug. It
didn't have any effect. That 1000Hz clock was still ticking.

-- 
Alan Curry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/