[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2380177.4Omy8JvF8m@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:38:14 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
" Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
" H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "intel_idle: mark states tables with __initdata tag"
Hi,
On Thursday, January 09, 2014 02:20:22 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday, January 09, 2014 03:30:26 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
> > This reverts commit 9d046ccb98085f1d437585f84748c783a04ba240.
> >
> > Commit 9d046ccb98085 marks all state tables with __initdata, but
> > the state table may be accessed when doing CPU online, which then
> > causing system crash as below:
>
> Uh, sorry for that - it most likely got missed since I tested it
> together with intel_idle_cpu_init() removal patches (they are in
> Rafael's PM tree now).
>
> Anyway, better than reverting it altogether would be to fix it by
> backporting the following patch:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/20/372
>
> Could you please try to solve the issue this way?
No, it's too late for that as far as 3.13 is concerned.
I have the patch above queued up for 3.14, though, so do you think that the
commit being reverted here can be safely re-applied on top of it?
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