PROBLEM: memory corrupting bug, bisected to 6dda9d55

pacman at pacman at
Thu Oct 21 05:33:36 EST 2010

Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:23 -0500, pacman at 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

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list