[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D9BA9FA.4010405@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:47:06 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
"lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net" <lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net>,
stable kernel team <stable@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH urgent] x86: Save cr4 to mmu_cr4_features at boot time
On 04/04/2011 11:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 05, 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 04/04/2011 11:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Peter very consciously did not mark the fix for this commit as -stable
>>>> material. It was ineligible for -stable for multiple reasons: it by no means
>>>> fixed a 2.6.39 regression and the fix was literally just a few days old.
>>>
>>> Has this issue been resolved in the mainline, BTW?
>>>
>>
>> Just to refresh my memory... is this an issue in mainline, or is it only
>> a problem in the backport (I'm wondering if the trampoline unification
>> patches might have accidentally solved the issue)?
>
>
> The problem is in mainline too, please fix ASAP.
>
For the suspend/resume case this seems like the sanest way to fix it in
my opinion. However, I am a bit concerned since I'm still not sure
we're programming registers in the correct order, that is:
MISC_ENABLE -> EFER -> cr4 -> cr3 -> cr0
I will look at this issue later this evening, but I wanted your opinion
on it.
-hpa
View attachment "diff" of type "text/plain" (599 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists