Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Romano Giannetti <romanol@...>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <stable@...>, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...>, Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@...>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@...>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...>, Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...>, Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...>, <akpm@...>, <alan@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 6:07 pm

On Tue, 22 May 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:

Ok, good to hear.


It's not known, no, and yeah, that's scary (and 60 seconds is long enough 
that most people would have grown bored and pushed the power button for 
five seconds, having considered the resume a failure).


Do you mean that doing "date" twice does not increase the seconds? If so, 
that's almost certainly related to the gaping delay. Which timer do you 
end up using (what does "dmesg | grep clocksource" say)? Does adding 
"clocksource=acpi_pm" to the kernel command line change things?

Also, what does your lspci look like?

		Linus
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review, Linus Torvalds, (Tue May 22, 6:07 pm)
Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review, Romano Giannetti, (Thu May 24, 8:06 am)
Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review, Linus Torvalds, (Thu May 24, 12:16 pm)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu May 24, 5:03 pm)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Thu May 24, 7:16 pm)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri May 25, 7:44 am)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sun May 27, 2:32 pm)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Mon May 28, 4:11 am)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Sun May 27, 3:09 pm)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Tue May 29, 8:00 am)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Michael-Luke Jones, (Tue May 29, 8:00 am)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Tue May 29, 8:16 am)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Nigel Cunningham, (Thu May 24, 10:20 pm)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Nigel Cunningham, (Thu May 24, 11:00 pm)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Nigel Cunningham, (Fri May 25, 12:33 am)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Wed May 30, 10:04 am)
Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Wed May 30, 10:08 am)
Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69] -stable..., Romano Giannetti, (Thu May 24, 11:06 am)
Re: Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69] -st..., Johannes Stezenbach, (Thu May 24, 6:30 pm)
Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review, Romano Giannetti, (Wed May 23, 3:09 am)
Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review, Paolo Ornati, (Wed May 23, 3:19 am)
Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review, Romano Giannetti, (Wed May 23, 3:38 am)