I have a binary MP kernel for amd64 that I am willing to share with
people who want to test and make sure that we all test the same thing.

Contact me off list.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:10:34PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I can comment from experience that the apmd changes only made it happen
> quicker; it happened nonetheless just less frequent.  I haven't tried D
> yet on the laptop but I will do that right now.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 09:48:34PM -0500, Dan Harnett wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 09:07:52PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > Ok, there are several code points here, and I'm having trouble keeping
> > > track of them all and who's machine worked how when.
> > > 
> > > First, there's A.  This is the code that shipped in 4.4.
> > > Then we have B.  This was the code that went in ~2 months ago.
> > > Then there was C, part of B backed out, but much like A, (call it A')
> > > for a few days.
> > > Then we went back to B for a brief time.
> > > Now we are at D, all of B backed out.  I'll call this A''.
> > > 
> > > So there are basically 2 varieties of the code, A and B.
> > > 
> > > A and A'' should be identical, except for other unrelated changes in
> > > the kernel.  The first question is, did anyone experience these
> > > problems with 4.4?  If you are having trouble, is your system stable
> > > with B?
> > 
> > I'm not sure that this is a new bug recently introduced or if it has
> > always been there, but never triggered.  I haven't had the X61s long
> > enough to comment on it's stability.  The T61 I've had for close to a
> > year now and it appeared to be completely stable.  It's been following
> > amd64 snapshots just shy of 4.3-beta.  Even with the acpicpu.c and est.c
> > changes that were in 4.3-current, backed out for 4.4, reintroduced in
> > 4.4-current, and now backed out once again, it appeared stable.  The
> > changes to apmd appear to trigger the bug.  Now, with 1.50 and 1.51 of
> > apmd.c reverted, I can no longer reproduce the bug.  With my recent luck
> > (or misfortune), I'd bet this is an old bug that has been lingering for
> > a while.  I also haven't been able to reproduce it on i386.

Reply via email to