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

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

Message-Id: <200907042329.04926.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:29:04 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	"Michael Witten" <mfwitten@...il.com>
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 Saturday 04 July 2009, Michael Witten wrote:
> 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.

Unfortunately, still unresolved.

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/