linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.30: hibernation/swsusp lockup due to acpi-cpufreq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4a4f9af3.27015a0a.48c6.ffffa6d5@mx.google.com>
Date:	Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	"Michael Witten" <mfwitten@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	"Johannes Stezenbach" <js@...21.net>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Venkatesh Pallipadi" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.30: hibernation/swsusp lockup due to acpi-cpufreq

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:39:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg22661.html):

> In fact, we need to do this entire thing differently.
> 
> The basic problem is that cpufreq_suspend() is a sysdev thing, so it will 
> always be called with iterrupts off and *only* for CPU0.  So, it looks like
> the majority of things we do there is just unnecessary (at least).

What's the status? This bug is driving me nuts.

Thanks,
Michael Witten

PS

See http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/bb3f4e0fc32273c4/e83178dfc9374669

--
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/