Re: Patch "Revert "ACPI: resources: Add checks for ACPI IRQ override"" has been added to the 5.13-stable tree

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

 



On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 08:15:11AM -0400, PGNet Dev wrote:
> On 7/31/21 2:56 AM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > 
> >      Revert "ACPI: resources: Add checks for ACPI IRQ override"
> > 
> > to the 5.13-stable tree which can be found at:
> >      http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> > 
> > The filename of the patch is:
> >       revert-acpi-resources-add-checks-for-acpi-irq-override.patch
> > and it can be found in the queue-5.13 subdirectory.
> > 
> > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> > please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
> > 
> > 
> >  From e0eef3690dc66b3ecc6e0f1267f332403eb22bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Hui Wang <hui.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 23:19:58 +0800
> > Subject: Revert "ACPI: resources: Add checks for ACPI IRQ override"
> > 
> > From: Hui Wang <hui.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > commit e0eef3690dc66b3ecc6e0f1267f332403eb22bea upstream.
> 
> Confirming that this^ revert resolves the reported non-boot regression
> 
> System does boot cleanly; but, then REboots @ 60 seconds.
> 
> It's a known bug, with fix already in 5.13.9/stable:
> 
>  Revert "watchdog: iTCO_wdt: Account for rebooting on second timeout"
>  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/commit/?h=linux-5.13.y&id=02db470b866fd06d8951
> 
> , causing TCO watchdog auto-reboot @ 60 secs.
> 
> Although particularly nasty on servers with /boot on RAID, breaking arrays if watchdog boots before arrays correctly assembled, iiuc, it's UN-related
> 
> With interim workaround
> 
>  edit /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf
> 
> +	blacklist iTCO_wdt
> +	blacklist iTCO_vendor_support
> 
> for this second issue in place, 5.13.8 boots & appears stable.

I do not understand, am I missing something in the queue for the next
5.13 release that needs to be applied?

confused,

greg k-h



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux