# 3.9.2 radeon.audio=1 => kernel panic

## tux_mind

hi all,

i've upgraded from 3.4 to 3.7 and audio over HDMI stops to work.

after reading that changes from 3.7 to 3.9 include intel HDMI audio i tried to upgrade to 3.9.2

the main trouble is that if i try to use audio over HDMI i'll get a kernel panic.

i tried to configure kexec for have more debugging infos but all i got it's a call trace.

here you are the image: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0RHupHzEorHT2djOHVOTjBOeEU/edit?usp=sharing

i think that the bug happens in the evergreen_irq_process when it try to wake up the device,

probably a bad handled pthread mutex/semaphore.

i posted here since i can't ask to kernel.org, i'm using a gentoo-patched kernel.

thanks in advance for your help.

-- tux_mind

----------

## tux_mind

WORKAROUND: downgrade to 3.8.13 fix the kernel panic and fix audio over HDMI.

if i remember well odd minors versions are in development and the even one are stable, right ?

but on kernel.org they mark the 3.9.3 as stable....

should i change the thread title to SOLVED ?

----------

## Hu

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> WORKAROUND: downgrade to 3.8.13 fix the kernel panic and fix audio over HDMI.
> 
> if i remember well odd minors versions are in development and the even one are stable, right ?
> 
> but on kernel.org they mark the 3.9.3 as stable....
> ...

 Your recollection is very outdated.  That has not been true since the 2.6 days.  Kernel 3.9.3 is considered a stable kernel.

----------

## TomWij

 *Hu wrote:*   

> Your recollection is very outdated. That has not been true since the 2.6 days. Kernel 3.9.3 is considered a stable kernel.

 

Not necessarily. Kernels later in a branch are usually more stable than kernels earlier in a branch, I call the former more stable kernels (which we end up stabilizing) and the latter feature kernels (which are handy for people that need new features, want to test them and don't expect it to be stable). Users that want working stable stuff should probably be on 3.8.13 and not on 3.9.3 which is not necessarily stable and will drop from the Portage tree in under a month anyway. It's the buffer that both upstream and downstream introduces that makes this the way it is.

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> i've upgraded from 3.4 to 3.7 and audio over HDMI stops to work.
> 
> after reading that changes from 3.7 to 3.9 include intel HDMI audio i tried to upgrade to 3.9.2

 

You should prefer 3.8.13 to 3.9.2 unless it got introduced with 3.9.

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> the main trouble is that if i try to use audio over HDMI i'll get a kernel panic.

 

I wouldn't expect feature test versions to work better than stabilized versions, despites upstream dubbing them as stable.

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> i tried to configure kexec for have more debugging infos but all i got it's a call trace.

 

Please report this call trace at https://bugs.gentoo.org as I don't keep close track of the forums.

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> here you are the image: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0RHupHzEorHT2djOHVOTjBOeEU/edit?usp=sharing

 

Attaching the image to the bug is fine. A quick look at it tells me it is a bug in snd_pcm. Please detail any findings in the bug report.

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> i think that the bug happens in the evergreen_irq_process when it try to wake up the device,
> 
> probably a bad handled pthread mutex/semaphore.

 

Nope, there is an earlier page fault (lower in the image).

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> i posted here since i can't ask to kernel.org, i'm using a gentoo-patched kernel.

 

As mentioned above, you're welcome to file bugs at https://bugs.gentoo.org where we can help you.

Even though you fixed it, you should probably still file it such that you can upgrade to later kernels in the future.

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> should i change the thread title to SOLVED ?

 

Yes, that would be nice towards other viewers.

 *tux_mind wrote:*   

> thanks in advance for your help. -- tux_mind

 

Greetings from the kernel herd.

----------

## Hu

 *TomWij wrote:*   

>  *Hu wrote:*   Your recollection is very outdated. That has not been true since the 2.6 days. Kernel 3.9.3 is considered a stable kernel. 
> 
> Not necessarily. Kernels later in a branch are usually more stable than kernels earlier in a branch, I call the former more stable kernels (which we end up stabilizing) and the latter feature kernels (which are handy for people that need new features, want to test them and don't expect it to be stable). Users that want working stable stuff should probably be on 3.8.13 and not on 3.9.3 which is not necessarily stable and will drop from the Portage tree in under a month anyway. It's the buffer that both upstream and downstream introduces that makes this the way it is.

 You should look at the quote to which I was responding.  He specifically referenced the old model of where 2.(2N) are stable (2.0, 2.2, 2.4) and 2.(2N+1) are unstable (2.1, 2.3, 2.5).  That model is long gone.  You are correct that higher numbers in a given stable series tend to be more stable because more fixes have been backported to them, but I am not aware of a policy where 3.6, 3.8, and 3.10 were restricted to receive only well tested functionality while 3.5, 3.7, and 3.9 receive any wild idea developers want to try.

----------

## TomWij

 *Hu wrote:*   

> You should look at the quote to which I was responding.  He specifically referenced the old model of where 2.(2N) are stable (2.0, 2.2, 2.4) and 2.(2N+1) are unstable (2.1, 2.3, 2.5).  That model is long gone.  You are correct that higher numbers in a given stable series tend to be more stable because more fixes have been backported to them, but I am not aware of a policy where 3.6, 3.8, and 3.10 were restricted to receive only well tested functionality while 3.5, 3.7, and 3.9 receive any wild idea developers want to try.

 

I meant to quote just the last part of your message, not the odd / even part of it. Though, regarding them; it's quite interesting to see how it faded out over time, the 3.0, 3.2 and 3.4 being LTS kernels and 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 going EOL really makes you feel like it continued for just a bit longer until they suddenly decided to EOL 3.6 - 3.9. I wonder whether they'll end up doing LTS for 3.10 or whether it will be a later release. Maybe the planned trajectories of the current LTS kernel may give an indication when the next LTS may be. Let's hope they end up picking a good branch for the next LTS.

----------

