On Thursday 02 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote: > * Rafael J. Wysocki (rjw@xxxxxxx) wrote: > > Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought the breakage might be introduced > > between 15f7176eb1cccec0a332541285ee752b935c1c85 and > > 0a0c5168df270a50e3518e4f12bddb31f8f5f38f, so I thought it would be a good > > idea to verify if 0a0c5168df270a50e3518e4f12bddb31f8f5f38f fails too. > > Ah, sure. It fails too (both test_suspend=mem and regular suspend/resume). Having looked at the commit the Arek's bisect turned up I don't think it's likely to have caused this problem to appear. It seems that the regression had been introduced before the PM and PCI updates went it, so I bet it's one of the x86 changes. Ingo, are there any commits obviously worth testing? Rafael _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
