On Monday, July 16, 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > To everyone involved: the fact that this change, which was likely to > > introduce > > regressions from the look of it alone, has been pushed to Linus (an to > > -stable > > at the same time!) so late in the cycle, is seriuosly disappointing. > > Well, we spent an massive amount of time in testing, reviewing and > discussion and it definitely did not break suspend/resume here.
I'm not saying that you didn't consider it thoroughly, but unfortunately you did overlook this particular issue, didn't you? > This was not pushed without a lot of thoughts and in fact what you are > seing is another long standing bug in the timekeeping resume code, > which was just papered over by the incorrect handling of the clock was > set cases in the other parts of the system. > > Does the following patch fix the problem for you ? Yes, it does, thanks! > @John: Should that clear ntp as well or is it enough to set ntp_error > to 0 ? > > /me really goes on vacation now. So who's going to take care of the patch? :-) Rafael > --------- > diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > index 269b1fe..3447cfa 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > @@ -717,6 +717,7 @@ static void timekeeping_resume(void) > timekeeper.clock->cycle_last = timekeeper.clock->read(timekeeper.clock); > timekeeper.ntp_error = 0; > timekeeping_suspended = 0; > + timekeeping_update(false); > write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&timekeeper.lock, flags); > > touch_softlockup_watchdog(); > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
