On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:27:14 +0200
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So I rebased the patch Steve tested as-is and only fixed the patch
> description and some comments in the code, preserving Steve's testing
> status, and propagated it into x86/urgent.
I pulled your latest x86/urgent branch, booted it and
tDate: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:13:30 +0200
>
> [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method
>
> Steve reported a reboot hang and bisected it back to this commit:
>
> a4f1987e4c54 x86, reboot: Add EFI and CF9 reboot methods into the default
> list
>
Commit-ID: f042310bf8a846bcf21012ffee78d9eb562a7fa4
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/f042310bf8a846bcf21012ffee78d9eb562a7fa4
Author: Ingo Molnar
AuthorDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:41:26 +0200
Committer: Ingo Molnar
CommitDate: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:13:30 +0200
[PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS
On 04/07/2014 04:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> basically, we know that we probably can't come up with a standard
> fallback chain that will work for *every* system, and the goal instead
> is to come up with the approach that requires the *fewest* quirks.
>
Not quite.
The problem is that we
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 15:09 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > so, it sounds like...
> >
> > 1) ACPI
> > 2) KEYBOARD
> > 3) ACPI
> > 4) KEYBOARD
> > 5) EFI
> > possibly 6) CF9
> > 7) TRIPLE *or* BIOS
> >
> > is what you would say makes sense, right? And really all there is to
> > decide is whether
On 04/07/2014 03:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> So if I'm following correctly, we should be able to sort the methods
> into three buckets:
>
> 1) known to (almost) always be 'safe'
> 2) may cause system freeze if they fail
> 3) definitely cause system freeze if they fail
>
> We put the method
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 14:03 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 01:00 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >
> > EFI is no question. So, Is everybody okay with the following sequence?
> > (1) ACPI
> > (2) KEYBOARD
> > (3) ACPI
> > (4) KEYBOARD
> > (ADD_1) EFI
> > (5) TRIPLE
> > (ADD_2) CF9
> > (ADD_3)
On 04/07/2014 01:00 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> EFI is no question. So, Is everybody okay with the following sequence?
> (1) ACPI
> (2) KEYBOARD
> (3) ACPI
> (4) KEYBOARD
> (ADD_1) EFI
> (5) TRIPLE
> (ADD_2) CF9
> (ADD_3) BIOS
>
No. Because after "triple" there is NOTHING. Putting anything after
olnar
> > AuthorDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:41:26 +0200
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar
> > CommitDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:48:03 +0200
> >
> > [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method
>
> So, JFYI, I have put this into x86/reboot to ge
On 2014/4/7 2:40, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> No question. The question at hand is if we should do it after all other
> non-terminal (BIOS, triple) methods have been tried.
>
The reboot sequence before the change is:
(1) ACPI
(2) KEYBOARD
(3) ACPI
(4) KEYBOARD
(5) TRIPLE
The reboot sequence after
On 04/06/2014 10:40 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:13:59 +0100
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think there is enough justification to revert the patch. We
>>> introduce EFI into the default list, we d
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:13:59 +0100
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> > I don't think there is enough justification to revert the patch. We
> > introduce EFI into the default list, we didn't see any reason to remove
> > it out so far.
>
> We
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> 'Breaks a box' is more than enough justification to revert a patch...
Indeed. That's especially true when "breaks a box" was found within a
day of the patch being merged.
The default thinking should be: "If we found _one_ box that broke
dur
* Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>
> On 2014/4/4 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method
> >
> > So, JFYI, I have put this into x86/reboot to get it tested, but it's
> >
On 04/04/2014 08:13 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is enough justification to revert the patch. We
>> introduce EFI into the default list, we didn't see any reason to remove
>> it out so far.
>
> We should be using
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> I don't think there is enough justification to revert the patch. We
> introduce EFI into the default list, we didn't see any reason to remove
> it out so far.
We should be using the EFI method, yes. But it seems that CF9 isn't
safe, s
On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 21:38 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>
> On 2014/4/4 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method
> >
> > So, JFYI, I have put this into x86/reboot to get it tested,
On 2014/4/4 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>>
>> [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method
>
> So, JFYI, I have put this into x86/reboot to get it tested, but it's
> not queued up for upstream yet until there's concensus.
>
>
olnar
> > AuthorDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:41:26 +0200
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar
> > CommitDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:48:03 +0200
> >
> > [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method
>
> So, JFYI, I have put this into x86/reboot to ge
6c3e3
>> Gitweb:
>http://git.kernel.org/tip/d122ab8d224a59aa0c3e4ba3540c6ab99556c3e3
>> Author: Ingo Molnar
>> AuthorDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:41:26 +0200
>> Committer: Ingo Molnar
>> CommitDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:48:03 +0200
>>
>> [PATCH]
itDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:48:03 +0200
>
> [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method
So, JFYI, I have put this into x86/reboot to get it tested, but it's
not queued up for upstream yet until there's concensus.
(Steve testing it wouldn't hur
Commit-ID: d122ab8d224a59aa0c3e4ba3540c6ab99556c3e3
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/d122ab8d224a59aa0c3e4ba3540c6ab99556c3e3
Author: Ingo Molnar
AuthorDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:41:26 +0200
Committer: Ingo Molnar
CommitDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:48:03 +0200
[PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS
* Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 07:10:47 -0700
> "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> > Could you tell which of these modes work on your box:
Basically my thinking is that the patch should be reverted, if my fix
below does not work.
I distilled your test results into:
reboot=t
23 matches
Mail list logo
