On Fri 17-05-13 14:23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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.
OK, if there is no progress on this I will send the revert during the weekend. It doesn't seem that many people would be affected ATM. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/
