On Mon, Feb 16 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:47:32AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 16 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 16 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin > > > >> <m.s.tsirkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > Summary: seem to need to revert 213d9417fec62ef4c3675621b9364a667954d4dd > > > >> > to fix resume from hibernation. Bugzilla entry created: > > > >> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12713 > > > >> > > > >> Looking over this, I see something strange in the commit in question: > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h > > > >> index 5175aa3..f53568c 100644 > > > >> --- a/include/linux/bio.h > > > >> +++ b/include/linux/bio.h > > > >> @@ -163,12 +163,15 @@ struct bio { > > > >> #define BIO_RW 0 /* Must match RW in req flags (blkdev.h) */ > > > >> #define BIO_RW_AHEAD 1 /* Must match FAILFAST in req flags */ > > > >> #define BIO_RW_BARRIER 2 > > > >> -#define BIO_RW_SYNC 3 > > > >> -#define BIO_RW_META 4 > > > >> -#define BIO_RW_DISCARD 5 > > > >> -#define BIO_RW_FAILFAST_DEV 6 > > > >> -#define BIO_RW_FAILFAST_TRANSPORT 7 > > > >> -#define BIO_RW_FAILFAST_DRIVER 8 > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_SYNCIO 3 > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_UNPLUG 4 > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_META 5 > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_DISCARD 6 > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_FAILFAST_DEV 7 > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_FAILFAST_TRANSPORT 8 > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_FAILFAST_DRIVER 9 > > > >> + > > > >> +#define BIO_RW_SYNC (BIO_RW_SYNCIO | BIO_RW_UNPLUG) > > > >> > > > >> /* > > > >> * upper 16 bits of bi_rw define the io priority of this bio > > > >> > > > >> I haven't read the code in depth, but taking running numbers and doing > > > >> bitwise "or" > > > >> on them looks a bit strange to me. > > > >> So here BIO_RW_SYNC is (3 | 4) = 7, that is the same as BIO_RW_FAILFAST_DEV. > > > >> So for example bio_failfast_dev and bio_sync are the same. > > > >> > > > >> Jens, could you comment on this please? Is this intentional? > > > > > > > > That's clearly a braino, you can't OR the shift values of course. I'll > > > > get it fixed up asap! > > > > > > Cool, send me a patch, I'll test. > > > > Try this. Not a huge fan of this approach, but it should bring behaviour > > back to what it used to be. > > I verified that applying this patch on top of 2.6.29-rc5 fixes > hibernation for me. Thanks for testing and confirming, it's queued up for inclusion asap. -- Jens Axboe _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
