On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 02:00:29PM -0400, Ben Guthro wrote: > I'm not sure it matters, but I'm testing against a changeset about a week old: > http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commit;h=1c4a5b37b55c56e49135e65728137f54288d1fe6 I was able to reproduce it with Xen 4.2 so found the culprit. .. And then another issue :-( > > Plus patches specific to XenClient Enterprise. > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:46:09PM -0400, Ben Guthro wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > >> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >> > The end result is this is a nice set of patches where there is only > >> > _one_ change in the x86 code (and it is just more of dealing with > >> > error case) - and the rest are all done in Xen side. > >> > >> I'm sorry to report that this series doesn't seem to work in my setup > >> against xen-unstable. > >> > >> To verify that it was, in fact this patch series, and not another Xen > >> regression - I swapped out the kernel with this patch series, with an > >> identical one, replacing only this series with your acpi-s3.v9 branch > >> - and everything worked fine. > > > > Thanks for testing it! > > > > I had tested it with Xen 4.1.3, which could be doing something different. > > Will see what is up. -- 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
