[I repeat myself just in case my last message disappeared. It would be a shame if 4.4 was also regressed because of a missing response.]
I wrote: > Russell King wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:29:37PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote: > > > Russell King wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:37:51PM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote: > > > > > I took both patches for a quick spin (a dozen boots and one hour > > > > > uptime after that for each patch) and no incidents. I have not > > > > > gathered data, but the crash on boot feels like it's quite a bit > > > > > above 50% when there is a problem so this feels good (I used 5 > > > > > clean reboots when I bisected and that worked). > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]> > > > > > Tested-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > (and please don't forget to cc stable) > > > > > > > > I've decided to do a more in-depth fix, so that we also solve the > > > > issue that when we schedule in these down_read()s, we don't leak > > > > the permissive domain register setting into the switched-to context. > > > > > > > > Can you test this patch please? Thanks. > > > > > > Still looking good. > > > > Does that mean I can add your reported and tested-by to this latest patch? > > Right, I thought that was obvious, sorry for the confusion. Reported-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]> Tested-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]> (and please don't forget to cc stable) Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
