On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Gabriel C wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings guys gals;
Hi ,
This was sent about an hour ago to the usb-devel list also.
-
Just a few minutes ago I needed to make use of my scanner, an Epson 1250u.
Firing up xsane, the usual
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a kmap_atomic() debugging patch which I wrote ages ago and whcih
Ingo sucked into his tree. I don't _think_ this warning is present in
your tree at all.
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
Andrew Morton wrote:
Subject: PATA scan: ACPI Exception AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT... is
beyond end of object
Submitter : Hans de Bruin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9320
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 03:40:49 +0100 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 which have been
reported since 2.6.24-rc1 was released and for which there are no fixes
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 11:50:33PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 8 of December 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 09:19:09PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...
Well, there's a patchset
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 11:50:33PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 8 of December 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 09:19:09PM +0100, Rafael J
Added some CCs.
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
This isn't a new issue, but so far no solution(s)
has been found, it seems. And with kernel development
going on, the issue becomes worse.
Up to 2.6.20 or so (I don't remember exactly, but if
I recall correctly the
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Mon 2007-12-03 22:54:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 3 of December 2007, Toralf Förster wrote:
Hhm,
in general it seems to be a regression of kernel 2.6.23 with
suspend/hibernate
if a user mode linux image
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 03:27:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...
Instead, I'd rather issue a warning that the swsusp header mismatches,
say with
which kernel the machine got suspended with and then start the countdown
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Sun 2007-12-09 22:31:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 9 of December 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Mon 2007-12-03 22:54:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 3 of December 2007, Toralf Förster wrote:
Hhm
On Monday, 10 of December 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mo, 10 Dez 2007, preining wrote:
I was running a kvm installing windows, and eek it crashed happily my
computer, probably because I forgot to give kvm -no-acpi option.
I forgot:
kernel 2.6.24-rc4
kvm 55 (debian sid 55+dfsg-1)
9cd9a0058dd35268b24fa16795a92c800f4086d4
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Oct 18 03:04:56 2007 -0700
Hibernation: Enter platform hibernation state in a consistent way
Because it causes my t61p's suspend-to-RAM to immediately do a
resume-from-RAM.
N
=9258
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patch :
Workaround : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9258#c30
Subject : PATA scan: ACPI Exception
[Added CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday, 12 of December 2007, Mitch wrote:
Can anyone help with this ? This seems to be a true SMP bug - the same
kernel on another UP machine is working fine (although different h/w).
Seems like stress (find for example) can easily trigger this. Does it
On Thursday, 13 of December 2007, Tino Keitel wrote:
Hi folks,
I often build Debian packages inside a chroot. Today I discovered a
failure during an aptitude update, which is a command to download new
package lists for the package management. In strace, the lines around
the failure look
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
b43err(dev-wl, Firmware file \%s\ not found
or load failed.\n, path);
So the question seems to be why
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 18:59:10 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion this all is the work of the distributions and not the
work of the kernel developers. Distributions have to make sure
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 12/14/2007 02:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Freezer: Fix APM emulation breakage
drivers/char/apm-emulation.c: In function 'apm_ioctl':
drivers/char/apm-emulation.c:370: error: implicit declaration of function
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
(-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
I'll check current tip on the weekend when
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 12/14/2007 08:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 12/14/2007 02:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Freezer: Fix APM emulation breakage
drivers/char/apm-emulation.c
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 12/14/2007 08:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 12/14/2007 02:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Freezer: Fix
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
This user did get the following messages in dmesg
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, John W. Linville wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
Either distributions have to install it automatically or people simply
have
to read one or two lines
On Sunday, 16 of December 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some newer
cards that
work better with v3 firmware
: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make the build system create the top-level Makefile for builds with make O=
if it is not present already.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
scripts/mkmakefile |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6/scripts
On Monday, 24 of December 2007, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Monday 24 December 2007 01:14:34 Linus Torvalds wrote:
Side note: we could obviously undo the commit that triggered this for you
[..]
In other words, we'd have to go back to our original ordering, which Len
said was fundamentally
On Monday, 24 of December 2007, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:50:03 -0800,
Andrew Morton wrote:
although it still is a
bit flaky (it takes well more than 5 seconds to suspend and the sound
adapter
doesn't work right after the resume, but it starts to work again about
On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Monday 24 December 2007 22:40:46 Robert Hancock wrote:
The ACPI spec has the following to say about the _PTS method:
The platform must not make any assumptions about the state of the
machine when _PTS is called. For example,
On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
Adding Linux-ACPI to CC.
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 00:03:25 Carlos Corbacho wrote:
According to the earlier versions of the ACPI spec, Linux is doing the
wrong thing - we should call _PTS() before we start powerding down devices,
On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
Adding Linux-ACPI to CC.
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 00:03:25 Carlos Corbacho wrote:
According to the earlier versions of the ACPI spec, Linux is doing the
wrong thing
On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 13:26:12 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, citing from the ACPI 2.0 specification, section 9.1.6 Transitioning
from the Working to the Sleeping State (which is what we're discussing
here):
3. OSPM places
On Monday, 24 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, having considered that for a longer while, I think the AML code is
referring to a device that we have suspended already, and since it's in a
low
power state, it just can't
On Monday, 24 of December 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
Some device drivers register CPU hotplug notifiers and use them to destroy
device objects when removing the corresponding CPUs and to create these
objects
when adding the CPUs back
On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 13:26:12 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, citing from the ACPI 2.0 specification, section 9.1.6 Transitioning
from the Working to the Sleeping State (which is what we're discussing
here
On Tuesday, 25 of December 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 24 of December 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
Some device drivers register CPU hotplug notifiers and use them to destroy
device objects when removing the corresponding
On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI
2.0 and later wants us to put devices into low power states before calling
_PTS, ACPI 1.0x wants us to do
On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Do we need to worry about the possibility that when the system wakes up
from hibernation, the set of usable CPUs might be smaller than it was
beforehand?
This is possible
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On ACPI systems the target state set by acpi_pm_set_target() is
reset by acpi_pm_finish(), but that need not be called in the
suspend fails. For this reason, we need an additional global suspend
callback that will reset the target state regardless
Hi,
The following patchset is intended to fix the ACPI 1.0 vs ACPI 2.0 suspend
ordering issue described at http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9528 and
in a recent LKML thread (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/25/37).
The patches actually do more than that, as I think it's reasonable to
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The execution of ACPI global control methods _GTS and _BFS is
currently tied to the preparation to enter a sleep state and to the
leaving of the sleep state, respectively. However, these functions
are called before disabling the nonboot CPUs and after
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The preparation to enter an ACPI system sleep state is now tied to
the disabling of GPEs, but the GPEs should not be disabled before
suspending devices. Since on ACPI 1.0x systems the _PTS global
control method should be executed before suspending
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Introduce global hibernation callback .close() and rename global
hibernation callback .start() to .open(), in analogy with the
recent modifications of the global suspend callbacks.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/acpi
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The ACPI 1.0 specification wants us to put devices into low power
states after executing the _PTS global control methods, while ACPI
2.0 and later want us to do that in the reverse order. The current
suspend code follows ACPI 2.0 in that respect which
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make acpi_sleep_prepare() static and cause it to print a message
specifying the ACPI system sleep state to be entered (helpful for
debugging the suspend/hibernation code).
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The ACPI 1.0 specification wants us to put devices into low power
states after executing the _PTS global control methods, while ACPI
2.0 and later want us to do that in the reverse order. The current
hibernation code follows ACPI 2.0 in that respect
On Thursday, 27 of December 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 of December 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
the ACPI specification between versions 1.0x and 2.0. Namely, while ACPI
2.0 and later wants us to put
On Thursday, 27 of December 2007, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Thursday 27 December 2007 18:03:52 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Please review (and test, if possible).
Suspend now works properly here with this patch set.
Tested-by: Carlos Corbacho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks a lot for testing
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Document the fact that __save_processor_state() has to save all CPU
registers referred to by the kernel in case a different kernel is
used to load and restore a hibernation image containing it.
Sigend-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sunday, 30 of December 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Document the fact that __save_processor_state() has to save all CPU
registers referred to by the kernel in case a different kernel is
used to load and restore a hibernation image
On Sunday, 30 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Document the fact that __save_processor_state() has to save all CPU
registers referred to by the kernel in case a different kernel is used
On Sunday, 30 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But i'm wondering - are we really ever resuming to a different
kernel version, for this to be an issue?
The boot kernel may be different from the kernel within the image, if
that's
On Sunday, 30 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how different can it be, for resume to work? I mean, we'll have
deeply kernel version dependent variables in RAM. Am i missing
something obvious?
On x86-64 it can be almost totally
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Document the fact that __save_processor_state() has to save all CPU
registers referred to by the kernel in case a different kernel is
used to load and restore a hibernation image containing it.
Sigend-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sunday, 30 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what's exactly in the hibernation image? Dirty data i suppose
No, everything, including the kernel code, page tables etc. :-)
- but what about kernel-internal pages. What if we go
On Monday, 31 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Do you
mean we can restore an image saved by v2.6.12 into v2.6.24? I.e. a
2.6.24 kernel will be able to run a 2.6.12 kernel's
On Saturday, 29 of December 2007, Toralf Förster wrote:
Hello,
the build with the attached .config failed, make ends with:
...
drivers/built-in.o: In function `ttpci_budget_deinit':
(.text+0x9d24d): undefined reference to `saa7146_vfree_destroy_pgtable'
drivers/built-in.o: In function
On Tuesday, 1 of January 2008, Mikko Vinni wrote:
Hi again,
Hi,
Please attach the information below to the Bugzilla entry at:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9673
Thanks,
Rafael
I compiled the kernel (unmodified e697789d64..., I promise) again with
DEBUGGING set to 1 in
://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9258
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patch :
Workaround : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9258#c30
Subject : v2.6.24
On Tuesday, 1 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi all.
Hi Nigel,
With the start of a new year, I suppose it's a good time to think about
what I'd like to do with TuxOnIce this year and see what feedback I get.
First up, I'm thinking about closing the mailing lists and asking people
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Sun 2007-12-30 23:13:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Document the fact that __save_processor_state() has to save all CPU
registers referred to by the kernel in case a different kernel is
used
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The cpuid driver should not attempt to destroy/create a device while
suspended, unless this device corresponds to a nonboot CPU that
failed to go online during a resume, in which case the PM core should
be asked to remove it.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The x86-64 MCE driver should not attempt to destroy/create a suspended
device, unless it corresponds to a nonboot CPU that failed to go online during
a resume.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_64.c
Hi,
Some device drivers register CPU hotplug notifiers and use them to destroy
device objects when removing the corresponding CPUs and to create these objects
when adding the CPUs back.
Unfortunately, this is not the right thing to do during suspend/hibernation,
since in that cases the CPU
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It sometimes is necessary to destroy a device object during a suspend or
hibernation, but the PM core is supposed to control all device objects in that
cases. For this reason, it is necessary to introduce a mechanism allowing one
to ask the PM core
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The MSR driver should not attempt to destroy/create a device while
suspended, unless this device corresponds to a nonboot CPU that
failed to go online during a resume, in which case the PM core should
be asked to remove it.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Some device drivers register CPU hotplug notifiers and use them to
destroy device objects when removing the corresponding CPUs and to
create these objects when adding the CPUs
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Christian Hesse wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi Christian.
Christian Hesse wrote:
On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Third, regarding the patch itself, I'm taking my time in working towards
the 3.0
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
On 2008.01.01 22:02:57 +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Subject : linux-2.6.24-rcX regression /
xserver-xorg-video-intel / Q35
Submitter : Harald Welte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-12-22 04:37
References
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
(David Brownell Cc:-ed too)
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we have the following test script in the userland suspend
package that is supposed to work right now:
#!/bin/bash
date
cd /sys/class/rtc/rtc0
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It sometimes is necessary to destroy a device object during a suspend or
hibernation, but the PM core is supposed to control all device objects in that
cases. For this reason, it is necessary
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
On 2008.01.01 22:02:57 +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Subject : linux-2.6.24-rcX regression /
xserver-xorg-video-intel
New version 0.8 of the userland suspend/hibernation tools (aka uswsusp) has
been released. The source code package is available for download at:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/suspend/suspend-0.8.tar.gz
(changelog and release notes within).
The following utilities are included in the package
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It sometimes is necessary to destroy a device object during a suspend or
hibernation
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to delete your fs/ directory in your output dir. Then I expect
the same bug to surface again.
It does surface indeed.
could you try the patch from Sam below - does it fix
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
So how do you handle threads that are blocked on I/O or a lock
during the system freeze process, then?
We wait until they can continue.
So if I have a process blocked on an unavilable NFS mount,
On Thursday, 3 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Thu 2007-12-27 19:15:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The execution of ACPI global control methods _GTS and _BFS is
currently tied to the preparation to enter a sleep state and to the
leaving
On Thursday, 3 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The preparation to enter an ACPI system sleep state is now tied to
the disabling of GPEs, but the GPEs should not be disabled before
suspending devices. Since on ACPI 1.0x systems
On Thursday, 3 of January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
This avoids the requirement to mark a lot of initialization functions not
__cpuinit just for resume from RAM.
More functions could be converted now, didn't do all.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen
On Thursday, 3 of January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
+config PM_CPUINIT
+ bool
+ depends on PM
Please make it PM_SLEEP (PM is more than suspend/hibernation).
That was something that irritated me too while writing the patch, but the
functions I
am interested in with this are
On Thursday, 3 of January 2008, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 10:08:43AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 11:11:13AM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 09:27:39AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 06:15:32PM +0530, Dhaval
On Thursday, 3 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Pavel Machek wrote:
So how do you handle threads that are blocked on I/O or a lock
during the system freeze process, then?
We wait until
On Friday, 4 of January 2008, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
Hi,
I'm unable to get an asus P1-AH2 system to suspend (to ram). The issue
occurs at suspend time: the system displays Suspending console(s) but
does not turn off the screen and system fans.
I used to have suspend/resume working fine
On Friday, 4 of January 2008, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:42:00PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 3 of January 2008, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 10:08:43AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 11:11:13AM +0530, Dhaval Giani
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It sometimes
On Friday, 4 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I have rebased
gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch
on top of the $subject series, the result is appended. It has only been
compilation tested for now, but I'll
Greg, Andrew,
The appended patch is a replacement for
gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch that deadlocked
suspend and hibernation on some systems.
Please consider for applying.
Thanks,
Rafael
---
From: Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED
/10/27/66
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9258
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Workaround : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9258#c30
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Greg, Andrew,
The appended patch is a replacement for
gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch that
deadlocked
suspend and hibernation on some systems.
Please
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Another thing to watch out for: Just in case somebody ends up calling
destroy_suspended_device(dev) from within dev's own resume method, you
should interchange the resume_device
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Another thing to watch out for: Just in case somebody ends up calling
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
Subject : PATA_HPT37X embezzles two ports
Submitter : Bjoern Olausson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-12-12 11:05
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/12/161
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Gregor Jasny wrote:
Hi,
During some tests I've noticed that the VIDIOCGMBUF ioctl hangs on my
bttv video device. It simply does not return and the process is stuck in
the D+ state. With Kernel 2.6.22.9 the (attached) testcase works like a
charm. The V4L2
On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject : soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 15s! [swapper:0]
Submitter : Parag Warudkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-12-07 18:14
References : http://lkml.org/lkml
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() for
just the one device being unregistered by
device_pm_destroy_suspended(),
Something like this, perhaps
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:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject : soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 15s! [swapper:0
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() for
just the one device being unregistered
On Thursday, 25 October 2007 19:47, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
I can no more suspend with 2.6.24-rc1. 2.6.23 is fine. Here is kernel log;
config attached
Please try the patch from:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commitsm=119318609013090w=2
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Thursday, 25 October 2007 23:58, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
J.A. Magallon wrote:
Hi...
I have some Quad-Opteron boxes with 4Gb memory and two of them are
running two different Linux distros.
Box one sees 4Gb of memory, but box two just sees 3.
Their mtrr setups are different:
On Friday, 26 October 2007 03:03, CSights wrote:
Hi LKML,
My computer running kernel 2.6.23 does not hibernate (suspend to disk
using
the kernel's methods) with a program (named stringTest) running in gdb, but
has received a SIGABRT.
The hibernate is successful when running
601 - 700 of 29242 matches
Mail list logo
