On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:37:47 -0400
Michael Shell <li...@michaelshell.org> wrote:

>   Hazel,
> Looking again at what you've posted, and the bug report you filed after
> you bisected the kernel:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg81646.html
> I'd say it is *not* an acpi problem even though it appears that way.
> You said that you do not have CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT set.
> How about 
CONFIG_NUMA is not set. CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT is set, but you can't unset 
it. It comes automatically with the x86 architecture.
> Now, are you sure the problem is strictly related to the commit
> here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9847857/
> i.e., if you revert that patch, and only that patch, in your
> kernel, the files affected are:
> arch/x86/Kconfig
> arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> x86/mm/Makefile
> x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
> include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
> does the problem then go away?
> If reverting the change does *not* fix the problem, then what
> about the other two changes you mentioned?:
> > Bisecting: 2 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
> > [9af9b94068fb1ea3206a700fc222075966fbef14] x86/cpu/AMD: Handle SME 
> > reduction in physical address size
> > 
> > Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
> > [33c2b803edd13487518a2c7d5002d84d7e9c878f] x86/mm: Remove phys_to_virt() 
> > usage in ioremap()
> > 
> > Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
> > [7744ccdbc16f0ac4adae21b3678af93775b3a386] x86/mm: Add Secure Memory 
> > Encryption (SME) support
> > [unquote]  
> You can reverse a patch via the -R option
> patch -p1 -R -i patchfile
> If that works, then it is almost certainly *not* an ACPI problem, but rather
> a memory management issue that seems to affect the ACPI system.
> Since you are not using an AMD system, the AMD SME patch must have changed
> something in the intel code, and that might not be too tough to narrow in
> on.
> That would be something to report to the kernel memory management people.
>   Cheers,
>   Mike
This is a wee bit over my head. I understand the concept of patching, but I 
don't understand how it relates to the git tree that I was using. I carried out 
the the bisection purely by rote, following instructions that I found on the 
web. I didn't really understand what I was doing and found the online git 
documentation quite opaque.

Does the "patchwork" site in your link contain the actual patch files that 
correspond to those weird alphanumeric codes? 

I would like very much to follow this up because who else can? I'm the only 
person I know about with hardware that triggers this bug. But I really need 
someone like you to hold my hand at least through the first few steps, and it 
would be better done off-list because after all it's not an LFS problem (and 
certainly nothing to do with systemd!) Could we perhaps start a thread in Linux 
Questions? I have an account there.
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Do not top post on this list.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


Reply via email to