On Tuesday, 17 of June 2008, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > May I gently ask that the patch ("x86: I/O APIC: timer through 8259A second-chance")
> > be reverted?
>
> We're trying to find a solution for a long-standing problem and this
> patch is a step in that direction. We need to find out exactly what is
> going wrong with the HP nx6325 system and removing the patch would make us
> lose the opportunity to get things right in this area. At the time I
> submitted that patch I warned a lot of testing would be required before it
> goes upstream and hopefully my request will get honored. If you do not
> want to participate in testing for whatever reason, you have the right to
> do so, but I insist on the patch to stay at least until we know the source
> of the problem and conclude there is no other way to get it fixed. Len
> reported he's got the same system and it behaves the same, so I hope he'll
> be able to do the testing if you decide to opt out.
I can do the testing actually, but IMO putting that patch into linux-next was a
mistake.
> Unfortunately the 64-bit variation has a lot of necessary logging
> disabled by default (as you have now discovered with the need to rename
> apic_printk() to printk()), so my plan is to cook up a patch to enable all
> the available logging facilities around that code first.
Well, that's easy. I can send you a dmesg output with all of the printk()s in
there functional if that helps, but frankly I don't see how this is going to
get you more information than I've already posted.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
