On Sunday, 7 of December 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Saturday, December 6, 2008 9:46 am Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, 6 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > I think it should go through Jesse? > > > > > > Probably correct. And we want it in -next, so that it can get some > > > testing even before I open the merge window. Because I hope everybody > > > realizes that there's no way we're doing this in 2.6.28, and we'll leave > > > the broken and unreliable suspend. > > > > > > Because afaik this is not a new bug (I tried to push a patch to do > > > suspend_late/resume_early for the PCI code a _loong_ time ago, but it > > > never got merged), and the only reason it showed up as a regression was > > > almost certainly simply that we've always had this. > > > > > > IOW, suspend/resume has always been dodgy wrt interrupts, and there's > > > some luck involved. And your machine just happened to get unlucky. > > > > > > I'd love to fix this in 2.6.28, but it's just not reasonable - it needs > > > widespread testing with an early -rc merge. And if it turns out to fix a > > > lot of machines, and there are no regressions, we can always back-port it > > > later. > > > > I agree. > > I'll stuff it into my -next branch tonight. Well, if the [1/3] patch goes into your tree as is, there will be a bad merge conflict between your tree and the Greg's one. I think it's better if I rebase that patch on top of the Greg's tree and push it to him (please see my last message to Greg, http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/7/58). The $subject patch is safe to pick up, though. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
