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: <200804012155.52547.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:55:51 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	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

On Tuesday, 1 of April 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!

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 think we _can_ do something about the failing NVidia systems in the 2.6.26
> > > > time frame, but that will require some more consideration.
> > > 
> > > We could simply blacklist them, no?
> > 
> > Yes, but for this purpose we'll have to redesign the core so that everything
> > (including debugging and the error paths) works if _PTS is executed before
> > suspending devices.  _That_, however, is not a 2.6.25 thing.
> 
> So we have solution that fixes 2.6.24 systems, makes system that
> worked in 2.6.25-rc5 work with command line option, but gets error
> handling wrong.
> 
> I guess we could use that?

IMO we should not use that, because it's broken.  That's why I posted the
patch.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/