[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160205222936.GA7139@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:29:36 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Phil Turmel <philip@...mel.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Bisected Regression 4.3.5 => 4.4.1 booting HP ZBook in EFI mode
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:48:52PM -0500, Phil Turmel wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I tried to get off of v4.3.x today by moving to v4.4.1.
> My laptop failed to boot -- stuck with the BIOS boot logo still
> showing. I'm direct-booting a merged kernel & initramfs in
> EFI mode.
>
> I bisected to badc688 "powerpc: Make {cmp}xchg* and their atomic_ versions fully ordered"
> which is upstream commit 81d7a329.
>
> I'm stumped as to how that powerpc patch can affect my x86 laptop, an
> HP ZBook 17 w/ i7 processor & nouveau graphics, but it certainly
> does. The bisect was stable and I confirmed by reverting it on
> top of the intended v4.4.1.
That's crazy, nothing should even be rebuilt if you revert that patch,
so I don't see how that could affect things here.
Can you verify that nothing does get rebuilt when you do this?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists