On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:37:47 -0400 Michael Shell <[email protected]> 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_ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT > CONFIG_NUMA 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. -- Hazel -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support 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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
