Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:06:53 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, "sbruno@freebsd.org" <sbruno@freebsd.org> Cc: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: stable/9 panic Bad tailq NEXT(0xffffffff80e52660->tqh_last) != NULL Message-ID: <201210021706.53942.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <1349204730.4246.12.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> References: <1342197082.2664.4.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <201210010847.53984.jhb@freebsd.org> <1349204730.4246.12.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:05:30 pm Sean Bruno wrote: > On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 05:47 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > Can you add extra printfs to see where exactly attach is failing? I > > would > > start with the attach routine in sys/dev/acpica/acpi_pcib_pci.c: > > > > > > hrm ... interesting side effects. After adding my printf's I don't hit > the panic any more. :-) > > I changed the ret val of acpi_pcib_pci_attach() and put in some > instrumentation in acpi_pcib_attach(). The key value is that > acpi_DeviceIsPresent() appears to be returning FALSE in this case. > > patch used -->http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/acpi_pcib.txt What happens if you just comment out the acpi_DeviceIsPresent() check? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201210021706.53942.jhb>