* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:20:24 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
