[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxzM0DamY13ZP_xnOzvcTfyyZtHFc8gismerqDVvGiuWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:05:06 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Phil Miller <mille121@...inois.edu>
Subject: Re: [27/27] clockevents: Set noop handler in clockevents_exchange_device()
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com> wrote:
>
> This is basically the reverse of 7c1e768974 (clockevents: prevent
> clockevent event_handler ending up handler_noop, 2008-09-03). The
> rationale for the latter still applies.
Hmm. You seem to be right. Instead of applying this to stable, it
looks like we should revert it from mainline.
> People have been reporting
> the analagous patch to this one causing hangs on resume in 3.1.y and
> 3.2 release candidates:
>
> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233033
> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233389
> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233159
> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1227868/focus=1230877
>
> So please consider reverting it for now.
Thomas? It does seem to be broken and there do seem to be regression
reports about it.
Should I revert it, or do you have alternative fixes?
Linus
--
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