On Sunday, 7 of December 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:
quoted text
> On Saturday, December 6, 2008 9:46 am Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 6 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I think it should go through Jesse?
> > >
> > > Probably correct. And we want it in -next, so that it can get some
> > > testing even before I open the merge window. Because I hope everybody
> > > realizes that there's no way we're doing this in 2.6.28, and we'll leave
> > > the broken and unreliable suspend.
> > >
> > > Because afaik this is not a new bug (I tried to push a patch to do
> > > suspend_late/resume_early for the PCI code a _loong_ time ago, but it
> > > never got merged), and the only reason it showed up as a regression was
> > > almost certainly simply that we've always had this.
> > >
> > > IOW, suspend/resume has always been dodgy wrt interrupts, and there's
> > > some luck involved. And your machine just happened to get unlucky.
> > >
> > > I'd love to fix this in 2.6.28, but it's just not reasonable - it needs
> > > widespread testing with an early -rc merge. And if it turns out to fix a
> > > lot of machines, and there are no regressions, we can always back-port it
> > > later.
> >
> > I agree.
> 
> I'll stuff it into my -next branch tonight.

Well, if the [1/3] patch goes into your tree as is, there will be a bad merge
conflict between your tree and the Greg's one.  I think it's better if I rebase
that patch on top of the Greg's tree and push it to him (please see my last
message to Greg, http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/7/58).

The $subject patch is safe to pick up, though.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/