On Fri 2018-10-26 10:22:14, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Mon 2018-10-22 06:20:13, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > From: Gerald Schaefer <[email protected]> > > > > > > [ Upstream commit 55a5542a546238354d1f209f794414168cf8c71d ] > > > > > > The resume code checks if the resume cpu is the same as the suspend cpu. > > > If not, and if it is also not possible to switch to the suspend cpu, an > > > error message should be printed and the resume process should be stopped > > > by loading a disabled wait psw. > > > > > > The current logic is broken in multiple ways, the message is never > > > printed, > > > and the disabled wait psw never loaded because the kernel panics before > > > that: > > > - sam31 and SIGP_SET_ARCHITECTURE to ESA mode is wrong, this will break > > > on the first 64bit instruction in sclp_early_printk(). > > > - The init stack should be used, but the stack pointer is not set up > > > correctly > > > (missing aghi %r15,-STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD). > > > - __sclp_early_printk() checks the sclp_init_state. If it is not > > > sclp_init_state_uninitialized, it simply returns w/o printing anything. > > > In the resumed kernel however, sclp_init_state will never be > > > uninitialized. > > > > Stable patches should fix one bug, and one bug only. > > So should upstream patches, but the rule of "stable patches match > upstream identically" overrules this :)
a) There is no such rule for upstream.
b) You should split the patch if it is important enough.
c) The "stable patches match upstream identically" rule does not
exist. Check the documentation.
:-(
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
