Re: [PATCH 0/2] Revert patches fixing probing of interrupts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 02:55:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Mon Dec 09 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:55:20AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > On Sun Dec 01 19, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > > On 11/29/19 5:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > > > > From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due
> > > > > > to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems
> > > > > Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The reverts fix 'the interrupt storm issue' that they are causing on
> > > > some systems but don't fix the issue with the interrupt mode not being
> > > > used. I was hoping Jerry would get access to a system faster but this
> > > > didn't seem to be the case. So sending these patches seemed the better
> > > > solution than leaving 5.4.x with the problem but going back to when it
> > > > worked 'better.'
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I finally heard back from IT support, and unfortunately they don't
> > > have any T490s systems to give out on temp loan. So I can only send
> > > patched kernels to the end user that had the problem.
> > 
> > At least it is a fact that tpm_chip_stop() is called too early and that
> > is destined to cause issues.
> > 
> > Should I bake a patch or do you have already something?
> > 
> > /Jarkko
> > 
> 
> This is what I'm currently building:

With a quick skim looks what I had in mind.

/Jarkko



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux