* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:20:24 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > The appended patch fixes a regression and is considered as 2.6.26 > > > material. Everyone having a box with working suspend to RAM is gently > > > requested to test it and verify if it doesn't break things. > > > > > > The patch applies to the current -git. > > > > The fix is _really_ tempting, but i think it's 2.6.26.1 material at the > > earliest. I just counted about 8 red flag items in that commit: > > > > - "assembly code" > > - "fresh change" > > - "suspend/resume" > > - "real-mode code" > > - "ACPI" > > - "SMM" > > - "CPU erratas" > > - "boot code" > > > > I'd say it's probably 90% fine, but it's just too much risk at this > > stage i think. The regression was only found 2 weeks ago, and the commit > > that broke it was upstream for 2 months (and was under testing for about > > 4 months). > > Merge it into 2.6.27-rc1 and add Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> to the changelog with > a note "needed in 2.6.26.x after a couple of weeks testing in mainline" or > something like that. ok. > I expect 2.6.25.x will be maintained for a while yet too... 2.6.25.x is not affected by the suspend+resume aspect of this problem. Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
