On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 04:42:18 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > 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.
OK, thanks!
