On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:12:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:55:46 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:39:41AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:51:45 +0200 > > > Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > With both patches applied `./analyze_suspend.py -config > > > > suspend-callgraph.cfg -filter i915` succeeds on a Lenovo X60t, so > > > > suspend and resume work perfectly, when tracing is enabled. > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > It’d be awesome, if you could tag both patches for inclusion into the > > > > stable Linux Kernel series. > > > > > > As long as they are not dependent on my patch series, I'm fine with > > > these going to stable. > > > > Stable sounds fine to me too. Both patches are independent of your > > x86-32 fentry patch set. > > Does https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9628301/ need to go into any particular > -stable series or just all of them? > > Or should a Fixes: tag be added to it? As far as I can tell this issue has been around since the function_graph tracer was introduced in 2008: 15e6cb3673ea ("tracing: add a tracer to catch execution time of kernel functions") (Though only for gcc >= 4.4.) Not sure if it's overkill to specify 'Fixes' for an 8+ year old bug? I guess it can't hurt anything. I think it can go in all of the stable branches. -- Josh -- 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
