[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806261035.19637.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:35:18 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 ACPI: normalize segment descriptor register on resume
On Thursday, 26 of June 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:17:26 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 25 of June 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
> > > >
> > > > If this could be sneaked into Ingo's tree for some automated testing,
> > > > that would be good.
> > >
> > > sure - i have applied it to tip/out-of-tree. I'm equally nervous about
> > > this change - it affects every suspend+resume cycle that people do on
> > > those boxes which are working just fine currently.
> > >
> > > btw., it would get a lot more coverage on my test-systems if this commit
> > > in tip/out-of-tree:
> > >
> > > | commit 01259383c345d13b70efcc549439927ae64dc66d
> > > | Author: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
> > > | Date: Fri May 16 10:12:36 2008 +0200
> > > |
> > > | sleepy linux self-test
> > >
> > > was upstream and if it was enabled more prominently, instead of hidden
> > > behind the rather obscure condition of:
> > >
> > > config PM_TEST_SUSPEND
> > > bool "Test suspend/resume and wakealarm during bootup"
> > > depends on SUSPEND && PM_DEBUG && RTC_LIB=y
> > >
> > > and even then it needs certain other config options related to RTC_LIB
> > > to actually work during bootup.
> > >
> > > As a result of all this obstruction, the automated testing i do, which
> > > builds and boots more than 1 random kernel per minute, will only run
> > > this self-test once every hour or so.
> > >
> > > I dont mind if this option breaks boxes (that its purpose: it does the
> > > same thing that a real suspend+resume does and suspend+resume frequently
> > > breaks boxes), but right now it's all obscured so heavily which makes
> > > automated testing a lot harder than it should be.
> > >
> > > it would be wonderful if this excellent suspend+resume self-test was
> > > upstream and was more prominent! :-)
> >
> > I thought it was in linux-next, wasn't it?
> >
>
> Len seems to think that Rafael seems to think that Ingo seems to think
> that this patch broke one of his boxes.
>
> Is it so?
Yes, it is.
The box is apparently broken, but we've been unable to reproduce the breakage
on other very similar boxes, so far. Investigation continues.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists