[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061129111045.212844cb@localhost>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:10:45 +0100
From: Paolo Ornati <ornati@...twebnet.it>
To: Paolo Ornati <ornati@...twebnet.it>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [SOLVED] Re: [discuss] 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions (v2)
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:44:51 +0100
Paolo Ornati <ornati@...twebnet.it> wrote:
> > > Okay, please let us know if it survives the next several cycles.
> > >
> > > OTOH, the problem may be hiding.
> >
> > Ok, and if it survives againg and again I can do a partial bisection...
>
> "-rc5" is still alive: 6 days of uptime using suspend/resume many times
> every day...
>
> so if the problem is there it's hiding very well.
>
>
> Now I'll slowly go back with older kernels and see what happens...
SHORT CONCLUSION: it was just a kernel miscompilation (I usually do
"make oldconfig; make clean; make" so I don't know if I missed "make
clean" or if it was caused by ccache...).
The fact that it's a miscompilation is "proved" by 3 simple things:
1) I've only seen the problem with that particular version
2) slow bisection pointed that the ipotetic bug was fixed between
4b1c46a3..d1ed6a3e, but I don't see any change that matters (on x86_64).
3) I'm running a clean recompiled 2.6.19-rc4-g4b1c46a3, that doesn't
have any problem.
:D
--
Paolo Ornati
Linux 2.6.19-rc4-g4b1c46a3 on x86_64
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists