On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:12:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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 <pmen...@molgen.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 <pmen...@molgen.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?
As far as I can tell this issue has been around since the function_graph
tracer was introduced in 2008:
15e6cb3673ea ("tracing: add a tracer to catch execution time of kernel
functions")
(Though only for gcc >= 4.4.)
Not sure if it's overkill to specify 'Fixes' for an 8+ year old bug? I
guess it can't hurt anything.
I think it can go in all of the stable branches.
--
Josh
