linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI PM: Restore the 2.6.24 suspend ordering

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47F248EA.6070705@derklecks.de>
Date:	Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:38:34 +0200
From:	Felix Möller <felix@...klecks.de>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Carlos Corbacho <carlos@...angeworlds.co.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Felix M?ller <fm@...nsuse.org>,
	Arthur Erhardt <erhardt@....physik.uni-tuebingen.de>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI PM: Restore the 2.6.24 suspend ordering

Hi,
>>>>>> For the reasons outlined above, the change of the suspend ordering
>>>>>> should be reverted, which is done by the patch below.
>>>>> But this will break those few nvidia-based systems, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> this may have been a good idea in -rc1 days, but we are in -rc7
>>>>> now... and the patch is slightly big.
>>>> It's quite obvious, though.
>>> Yes, but breaking systems between -rc7 and final is _very_ unnice.
>> Breaking systems between 2.6.24 and 2.6.25 is even worse, which is why
>> I've posted this patch.
>>
>> IOW, we tried to fix systems that were broken with 2.6.24, but it didn't work,
>> because our "fix" broke systems that were OK with 2.6.24.  Solution: revert
>> the "fix" and go back to the design board.  That's all we can do so late in
>> the release cycle, IMO.
> 
> Well, I agree that regression from 2.6.24 is worse, but it is
> _slightly_ worse... -rcs are really expected to improve...
> 
> ...plus it no longer looks like macbook regression is caused by _PTS
> ordering?
I am the reporter from the original Novell Bug: 
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=374217

I just tried current git head (two hours ago) with the patch (the one 
from the beginning of this thread) from Rafael and without it. With the 
patch my MacBook does suspend without it does not.

HTH
Felix Möller
--
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/