On 2014/4/4 8:12, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/03/2014 04:52 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote: >> On 2014/4/4 7:40, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:23:32 +0800 >>> "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Can you please send the dmi table out? >>> >>> I already did as a gz attachment to H. Peter. You were on the Cc, did >>> you not receive it? >>> >> Oh, I got it. This is a Preproduction machine. >> When reboot failed via a method (=e or =p), there are two case. >> >> Case 1: this method do nothing, pass the attempt chance to the next method >> Case 2: this method hangs the system >> >> I want to know if CF9 is case 1 or case 2. Could you please try the following >> patch *without* any reboot parameters? >> >> (1) If we didn't see any string, then EFI hangs your box. >> (2) if we see the first string but not the second one, CF9 hangs your box >> (3) if we see both, couldn't be, because BIOS works on your box. >> > > Given that this machine doesn't have EFI, it seems kind of obvious, no? > > -hpa
Yes. it should be but I want to confirm. The current situation is, - we have one(do we know more?) preproduction machine hangs by CF9. - We have more than one(could be thousand known) production machine works by CF9. So, if I understand correctly(please correct me if I was wrong), I don't think the justification is enough to revert the patch. The patch includes EFI, CF9 and BIOS. I'm open to make Steven's machine work: (1) remove CF9 (2) add DMI table (3) any other idea without a regression. I prefer (2) or (3) if better because if we do (1) we will probably receive some other regression reports. Thanks, -Aubrey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/