On Friday, May 17, 2013 02:09:30 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 17-05-13 14:11:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, May 17, 2013 09:54:46 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 15-05-13 11:56:08, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > OK, I have bisected it to 78d77df7 (x86-64, init: Do not set NX bits on > > > > non-NX capable hardware). Reverting the patch on top of 3.10-rc1 fixes > > > > the issue for me and the machine resumes just fine. > > > > > > > > Let's add involved people to the CC. > > > > > > > > The original message with the confing and dmesg is bellow. > > > > > > Anybody had chance to look at this? I am quite surprised that something > > > that is in init code might influence resume from suspend path. Or is it > > > just a side effect of some other changes in that area? > > > > > > <goes and checks the latest 3.9 stable which has the backport of the > > > patch> > > > > > > Yes the latest stable is affected as well! > > > > Well, I suppose there will be more response if you send a revert request to > > Linus. > > Maybe the patch should be reverted in the stable tree right now
No, it doesn't work like that. It won't be reverted in -stable before it is reverted in the Linus' tree. > - I am not sure about all the consequences as from reading the changelog > I do not understand which bug the patch is supposed to fix. That really doesn't matter. If it breaks things, it is a revert candidate regardless. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
