[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2443543.DcYTiKRKUq@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:12:42 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace/x86: fix x86-32 triple fault with graph tracing and suspend-to-ram
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:55:46 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:39:41AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:51:45 +0200
> > Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > With both patches applied `./analyze_suspend.py -config
> > > suspend-callgraph.cfg -filter i915` succeeds on a Lenovo X60t, so
> > > suspend and resume work perfectly, when tracing is enabled.
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
> > >
> > > It’d be awesome, if you could tag both patches for inclusion into the
> > > stable Linux Kernel series.
> >
> > As long as they are not dependent on my patch series, I'm fine with
> > these going to stable.
>
> Stable sounds fine to me too. Both patches are independent of your
> x86-32 fentry patch set.
Does https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9628301/ need to go into any particular
-stable series or just all of them?
Or should a Fixes: tag be added to it?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists