On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 20:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I am sorry, I lost track of this problem. As for 2.6.21,
create_freezeable_workqueue
doesn't work and conflict with suspend
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Okay, I have added a comment to freezer.h. Please have a look.
-extern void thaw_some_processes(int all);
+/*
+ * The PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag should be set by a vfork parent right before
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 21:35, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 02/28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Okay, but I've just finished the patch that removes the freezability of
workqueues (appended), so can we please do this in a separate one?
Please, please, no. This patch is of course correct
-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc2.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6
Hi,
The following series of patches contains modifications of the task freezer that
harden it and prepare it to be used in the CPU hotplug.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reading of PF_BORROWED_MM in is_user_space() without task_lock() is racy.
Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/power/process.c |8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove PF_NOFREEZE from the bluetooth threads, adding try_to_freeze() calls as
required.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
net/bluetooth/bnep
From: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove PF_NOFREEZE from the rcutorture thread, adding a try_to_freeze() call as
required.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the freezing of tasks fails and a task is preempted in refrigerator() before
calling frozen_process(), then thaw_tasks() may run before this task is frozen.
In that case the task will freeze and no one will thaw it.
To fix this race we can call
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Currently try_to_freeze_tasks() has to wait until all of the vforked processes
exit and for this reason every user can make it fail. To fix this problem
we can introduce the additional process flag PF_FREEZER_SKIP to be used by
tasks that do not want
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kernel threads can become userland processes by calling kernel_execve(). In
particular, this may happen right after try_to_freeze_tasks(FREEZER_USER_SPACE)
has returned, so try_to_freeze_tasks() needs to take userspace processes
into consideration even
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add try_to_freeze() calls to the remaining kernel threads that do not call
try_to_freeze() already, although they set PF_NOFREEZE.
In the future we are going to replace PF_NOFREEZE with a set of flags that will
be set to indicate in which situations
On Thursday, 1 March 2007 15:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hm. There's some weird bisection artifact here. Here are the commits i
tested, in git-log order:
#1 commit 01363220f5d23ef68276db8974e46a502e43d01d bad
#2 commit
On Thursday, 1 March 2007 20:38, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi,
Remove PF_NOFREEZE from the rcutorture thread, adding a
try_to_freeze() call as required.
...
@@ -607,6 +607,7 @@ rcu_torture_writer(void *arg)
}
rcu_torture_current_version++;
On Saturday, 3 March 2007 00:33, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
One way to embed try_to_freeze() into kthread_should_stop() might be
as follows:
int kthread_should_stop(void)
{
if (kthread_stop_info.k == current)
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Update the outdated and inaccurate description of the software suspend in
Kconfig.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/power/Kconfig | 39 ++-
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions
On Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:48, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Ok, I've thought some more but I still don't know ...
On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
so I
On Friday, 23 February 2007 17:36, David Brownell wrote:
rtc_cmos 00:02: rtc core: registered rtc_cmos as rtc0
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0030
RIP:
[804032c3] rtc_sysfs_remove_device+0x23/0x50
The bug isn't in rtc_cmos, but
On Monday, 5 March 2007 15:44, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On 3/1/07, Kristian Grønfeldt Sørensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 15:25 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On 3/1/07, Kristian Grønfeldt Sørensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm.
Now i get this BUG:
[changed Cc list]
On Sunday, 25 February 2007 18:14, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
On Воскресенье 25 февраля 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 25 February 2007 11:37, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
On Воскресенье 25 февраля 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 25 February 2007 00:26
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 09:32, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2/kernel/power/Kconfig
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc2.orig/kernel/power/Kconfig 2007-02-28
23:54:45.0 +0100
+++
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended workaround (works for me, waiting
for
Johannes to confirm it works for him too), but I think we need something
better
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 10:41, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2/kernel/power/Kconfig
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc2.orig/kernel/power/Kconfig 2007-02-28
23:54:45.0 +0100
+++
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 11:32, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Hi,
I see following BUG() on serial console while hibernating on a x86_64
machine. I am using 2.6.21-rc2 kernel.
I see it too.
BUG: at arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:70 init_low_mapping()
Call Trace:
[80214b9a]
Hi,
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:25, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 21:31 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 March 2007 01:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 22:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
For 2.6.21-rc1 I've invented the appended
Hi,
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 01:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:36:29 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8136
Let's take this to email.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 15:36 ---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prevent the WARN_ON() in arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping()
from triggering by disabling nonboot CPUs before we finally enter the platform
suspend.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/power/disk.c |1
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 22:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:44:11 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prevent the WARN_ON() in arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping()
from triggering by disabling
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 23:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:14:29 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 22:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:44:11 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Rafael J
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 23:19, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Prevent the WARN_ON() in
arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping()
from triggering by disabling nonboot CPUs before we finally enter the
platform
suspend.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL
On Thursday, 8 March 2007 01:20, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:13:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the WARN_ON() in
arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping()
triggers every time an SMP x86_64 box is suspended to disk using the
platform
mode
/126
Submitter : Maxim Levitsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit e3c7db621bed4afb8e231cb005057f2feb5db557
commit ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
commit 259130526c267550bc365d3015917d90667732f1
Handled
On Thursday, 29 March 2007 09:44, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting this while trying to swsups the machine in -rc5, -rc4 is fine:
Disabling non-boot CPUs
CPU 1 is now offline
SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
CPU1 is down
swsusp: critical section:
swsusp: Need to copy 131380
On Friday, 30 March 2007 10:05, Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm3/
- git-cryptodev has things in it again
- Re-added git-e1000: a large amount of e1000 driver work
- git-net has a huge amount of material in it,
Hi,
This patch appeard on LMKL six days ago and there have not been any negative
comments since then, so I think I can try to make it official.
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fix the regression resulting from the recent change of suspend code ordering
that causes systems based
On Saturday, 31 March 2007 22:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:04:15 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This patch appeard on LMKL six days ago and there have not been any negative
comments since then, so I think I can try to make it official.
---
From
On Saturday, 31 March 2007 23:23, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 01:35:32PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:04:15 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This patch appeard on LMKL six days ago and there have not been any
negative
comments
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 17:21, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
I'm sorry to say this has now happened with kernel 2.6.21-rc5, too.
I started a kernel compilation in the evening and came back in the
morning to find all KDE decorations gone. All processes normally
running for a KDE session and labelled
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 20:17, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a):
On Thursday, 29 March 2007 09:44, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting this while trying to swsups the machine in -rc5, -rc4 is fine:
Disabling non-boot CPUs
CPU 1 is now offline
SMP alternatives: switching
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 21:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:00:12 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton napisał(a):
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm3/
BUG: at
Hi,
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 20:34, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Problem is that suspending _with_ removable mass storage devices
attached just will not work. User will unplug them, then complain
about corruption. Advanced user will unplug them, work with them
somewhere else, replug
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 22:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 21:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:00:12 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton napisał(a):
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 22:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 21:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:00:12 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton napisał(a):
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21
On Monday, 2 April 2007 04:54, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 20:34, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Problem is that suspending _with_ removable mass storage devices
attached just will not work. User will unplug them
-by: Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually no, I was not in cc.
+/* Per process freezer specific flags */
+#define PF_FE_SUSPEND 0x8000 /* This thread should
On Monday, 2 April 2007 10:24, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a):
On Thursday, 29 March 2007 09:44, Jiri Slaby wrote:
swsusp: critical section:
swsusp: Need to copy 131380 pages
swsusp: Not enough free memory
Error -12 suspending
Enabling non-boot CPUs
On Monday, 2 April 2007 13:27, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what I can make out, we fail to freeze if we have some task in
the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state for more than the timeout period.
Question is can we have some task in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
On Tuesday, 3 April 2007 09:37, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a):
On Monday, 2 April 2007 10:24, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a):
On Thursday, 29 March 2007 09:44, Jiri Slaby wrote:
swsusp: critical section:
swsusp: Need to copy 131380 pages
swsusp
On Tuesday, 3 April 2007 16:15, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 06:26:19PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Besides, how problematic is this in practise (that threads sleep for
extended durations in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state breaking
freezer/suspend/hotplug)?
Should
On Tuesday, 3 April 2007 14:01, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:16:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i'm wondering about how TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks are handled by the
freezer: are they assumed frozen immediately, or do we wait until they
notice their PF_FREEZING and
Hi,
I think this is 2.6.21 material.
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fix a bug in the swsusp's memory shrinker that causes some systems using
highmem to refuse to suspend to disk if image_size is set above 1/2 of
available RAM.
Special thanks to Jiri Slaby for reporting
On Tuesday, 3 April 2007 01:06, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:48:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 1 April 2007 17:21, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
I'm sorry to say this has now happened with kernel 2.6.21-rc5, too.
I started a kernel compilation in the evening
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you can figure out a way to disable the warning in device_del
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
Still, shouldn't we fail the removal of the device apart from giving the
warning?
We can't. device_del() can't fail -- it returns void
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Still, shouldn't we fail the removal of the device apart from giving the
warning?
Actually, having thought about it a bit more, I don't see the point in
preventing the removal of the device
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:55:01 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23
reported since 2.6.24-rc1
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
No -- the whole idea here is to print an error message in the system
log if a driver's resume method tries to call device_del(). Deadlock
is unavoidable in this case, but at least we'll know
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with it. All that will happen is that the
removal will start before the suspend and finish after the resume.
In that case, we'll attempt to call the device's .suspend() and .resume
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with it. All that will happen is that the
removal will start before the suspend and finish after the resume.
In that case
is probable.
I've tested it a little, but the error paths are generally untested.
Please review.
Thanks,
Rafael
---
From: Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch reorganizes the way suspend and resume notifications are
sent to drivers. The major changes
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Yi Yang wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 08:09 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
This patch changes empty output to unsupported in order that a user
knows
wakeup feature isn't supported by this device when he/she
'cat /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup', please
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
kernel/suspend_64.c and power/cpu.c were equivalent. Move them into
power/cpu_*.c for consistency.
power/swsusp.S and kernel/suspend_asm_64.S were both misnamed and
equivalent. Merge then minto power/hibernation_*.S.
Well, all of that are
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
Unify arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep*.c
Pretty trivial unification; when two functions differed, it was
usually in error handling, and better of the two was picked up.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks-okay-to: Rafael J
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Yi Yang wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 02:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Yi Yang wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 08:09 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
This patch changes empty output to unsupported in order that a
user
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
Let's try to summarize the main issues here:
1. We want the PM core to lock all devices during suspend and
hibernation. This implies that registration and unregistration
at such times can't work, because they need to lock the
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Please see the patch at: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/6/298 . It represents
my
current idea about how to do that.
It has some problems.
First, note that the list manipulations
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Please see the patch at: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/6/298 . It
represents my
current
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Martin Bligh wrote:
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:00:33 -0600
From: James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Osterlund [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Matthew
On Tuesday, 8 of January 2008, Parag Warudkar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 2:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Parag Warudkar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 7:57 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[--snip--]
Okay, well, now I'm leaning towards the asynchronous approach.
I'll prepare a new patch and send it later today.
Okay.
Appended is what I managed to put together today
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
Unify arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep*.c
Pretty trivial unification; when two functions differed, it was
usually in error handling, and better of the two was picked up.
Signed-off
On Tuesday, 8 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Martin Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, would that be possible to forward messages sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
stupid question: why isnt
On Tuesday, 8 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Martin Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, would that be possible to forward messages sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
stupid question: why isnt this done via what most maintainers do, to
set up your bugzilla
On Tuesday, 8 of January 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
ok done; I had to fizzle a bit because some things aren't *exactly* a
BUG() statement but I track them anyway (things like the sleeping in
invalid context check), so I had to somewhat
too ...
Signed-off-by: David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/power/devices.txt | 49
1 file changed, 49 deletions(-)
--- g26.orig/Documentation/power/devices.txt 2008-01-09 12:05
On Wednesday, 9 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Appended is what I managed to put together today.
It probably still has some problems, but I'm not seeing them right now (too
tired). At least, it doesn't break my system. ;-)
Please
On Wednesday, 9 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
In dpm_resume() you shouldn't need to use dpm_list_mtx at all, because
the list_move_tail() comes before the resume_device(). It's the same
as in dpm_power_up().
Still
On Thursday, 10 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
In dpm_resume() you shouldn't need to use dpm_list_mtx at all, because
[Sorry for not replying earlier, I missed your message.]
On Friday, 4 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you would need to fix that first. Would be fine for me, but is
out of scope for my patch.
OK, I'll fix that up later.
i'll
On Thursday, 10 of January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thursday 10 January 2008 12:26:07 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:15:15PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
But your patch does:
+config PM_CPUINIT
+ bool
+ depends on PM
That is because
if a deadlock is probable.
Greetings,
Rafael
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch reorganizes the way suspend and resume notifications are
sent to drivers. The major changes are that now the PM core acquires
every device semaphore before calling
[Len, this patch applies on top of the suspend branch, please add.]
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c compile with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unset
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1
[Ingo, this patch applies on top of the mm branch, please add.]
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CONFIG_PM_CPUINIT should depend on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP rather than
on CONFIG_PM, because it only is needed for suspend and
hibernation. Also, it's not necessary to compile
arch/x86/power
On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:46:13 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first patch in the series introduces such a mechanism. The remaining
three
patches modify the MSR, x86-64 MCE and cpuid drivers in accordance with
On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 10:11:52PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:49:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
err, no. pm-introduce-destroy_suspended_device.patch demolishes
On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Rene Herman wrote:
On 12-01-08 16:21, Pierre Ossman wrote:
Ah, sorry. It was a different thread. Look for a mail with the subject
PNP: do not stop/start devices in suspend/resume path in the LKML och
linux-pm archives.
Right, and I see that the
On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Rene Herman wrote:
On 12-01-08 12:12, Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:23:27 +0100
Rene Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavel, Rafael -- the attached fixes snd-cs4236 not coming back to life for
Ondrej after hibernation due to the
On Friday, 4 of January 2008, Meelis Roos wrote:
Todays git gives the following warning during bootup on a Intel 845+PATA
PC (using libata to drive PATA):
Driver 'sd' needs updating - please use bus_type methods
Driver 'sr' needs updating - please use bus_type methods
They are due to
) instead.
Thanks,
Rafael
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch reorganizes the way suspend and resume notifications are
sent to drivers. The major changes are that now the PM core acquires
every device semaphore before calling the methods, and calls
: EHCI causes system to resume instantly from S4
Submitter : Maxim Levitsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-10-28 14:56
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/27/66
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9258
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL
On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[RFC: Would that be useful if I sent regression-fixing patches,
That is, the patches pointed to by the Patch fields in the list entries.
CCed to the appropriate maintainers/lists, along with the reports?]
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from
On Saturday, 12 of January 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 22:05 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[RFC: Would that be useful if I sent regression-fixing patches, CCed to the
appropriate maintainers/lists, along with the reports?]
Perhaps keep the regression report
On Sunday, 13 of January 2008, Neil Brown wrote:
On Sunday January 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:34 -0500
Jeff Layton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lockd makes itself freezable, but never calls try_to_freeze(). Have it
call try_to_freeze() within the main loop.
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, David Smith wrote:
On Fri 2008-01-04 14:09:01, Kent Yoder wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 10:39 AM, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu 2008-01-03 21:44:15, Marcel Selhorst wrote:
Dear list,
this patch fixes a bug, that prevents the TPM chip
On Monday, 14 of January 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:40:58 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, but please fix the whitespace.
Pavel
OK, attached
yield.
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
init/do_mounts_initrd.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.23-rc6/init/do_mounts_initrd.c
On Saturday, 15 September 2007 01:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:14:08 +0200
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if (!hibernation_ops)
+ return -ENOSYS;
+
+ /*
+* We have cancelled the power transition by running
+* hibernation_ops
: unknown
Subject : something broke resume from s2ram on mbp c1d (??? :))
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/67
Last known good : 2.6.23-rc3
Submitter : Soeren Sonnenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Saturday, 15 September 2007 09:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
On 06 Sep 2007 13:31:50 +0200 Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Ebbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some systems lock up without the noapic option.
Please find patterns: cpu type, chipsets, mainboard vendors etc.
[This is a fix on top of
hibernation-enter-platform-hibernation-state-in-a-consistent-way-rev-4.patch]
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If hibernation_platform_enter() fails, consoles should be resumed so that
diagnostic information related to the failure is available to the user
301 - 400 of 29242 matches
Mail list logo
