Today Karol Lewandowski wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:46:56PM +0100, Mel LKML wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > On 10/23/09, Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > > > > Ok, I've tested patches 1+2+4 and bug, while very hard to trigger, is > > > still present. I'll test complete 1-4 patchset as time permits. > > Sorry for silence, I've been quite busy lately. > > > > And also patch 5 please which is the revert. Patch 5 as pointed out is > > probably a red herring. Hwoever, it has changed the timing and made a > > difference for some testing so I'd like to know if it helps yours as > > well. > > I've tested patches 1+2+3+4 in my normal usage scenario (do some work, > suspend, do work, suspend, ...) and it failed today after 4 days (== 4 > suspend-resume cycles). I have been testing 1+2,1+2+3 as well as 3+4 and have been of the assumption that 3+4 does help ... I have now been runing a modified version of 4 which prints a warning instead of doing anything ... I have now seen the allocation issue again without the warning being printed. So in other words 1+2+3 make the problem less severe, but do not solve it 4 seems to be a red hering. cheers tobi -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch tobi@xxxxxxxxxx ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
