Re: [Intel-gfx] dad4f140ed ("Merge branch 'xarray' of .."): Mem-Info:

2018-11-23 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 09:20:38AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > Greetings, > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master > > commit dad4f140edaa3f6bb452b6913d41af1ffd672e45 I

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52960/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5196_full -> Patchwork_10900_full = == Summary - WARNING == Minor unknown changes coming

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value (rev3)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52700/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5196_full -> Patchwork_10899_full = == Summary - SUCCESS == No regressions

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52960/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5196 -> Patchwork_10900 = == Summary - SUCCESS == No regressions found. External URL:

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52960/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip f3f5633bd407 drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets -:6:

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/cnl: Fix the formulae for register offsets

2018-11-23 Thread Radhakrishna Sripada
For gen10+ the offsets for Slice PG cntl/ EU PG cntl donot scale well for higher slices. Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio Signed-off-by: Radhakrishna Sripada --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 15 +-- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC 4/5] drm/amdgpu: Add accounting of command submission via DRM cgroup

2018-11-23 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 23.11.18 um 18:36 schrieb Eric Anholt: > Christian König writes: > >> Am 20.11.18 um 21:57 schrieb Eric Anholt: >>> Kenny Ho writes: >>> Account for the number of command submitted to amdgpu by type on a per cgroup basis, for the purpose of profiling/monitoring applications. >>> For

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915: Program SKL+ watermarks/ddb more carefully (rev8)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Program SKL+ watermarks/ddb more carefully (rev8) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51878/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5195_full -> Patchwork_10898_full = == Summary - WARNING == Minor unknown changes

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC 4/5] drm/amdgpu: Add accounting of command submission via DRM cgroup

2018-11-23 Thread Eric Anholt
Christian König writes: > Am 20.11.18 um 21:57 schrieb Eric Anholt: >> Kenny Ho writes: >> >>> Account for the number of command submitted to amdgpu by type on a per >>> cgroup basis, for the purpose of profiling/monitoring applications. >> For profiling other drivers, I've used perf

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value (rev3)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52700/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5196 -> Patchwork_10899 = == Summary - SUCCESS == No regressions found.

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value (rev3)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52700/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip 3ac91fa0d1e6 drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value -:11:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value

2018-11-23 Thread Imre Deak
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 02:03:18PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Imre Deak wrote: > > Depending on the transcoder enum values to translate from transcoder to the > > corresponding CHICKEN_TRANS register can easily break if we add a new > > transcoder. Add an explicit mapping

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915: Cache the error string (rev6)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Cache the error string (rev6) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/46777/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5195_full -> Patchwork_10896_full = == Summary - WARNING == Minor unknown changes coming with

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Program SKL+ watermarks/ddb more carefully (rev8)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Program SKL+ watermarks/ddb more carefully (rev8) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51878/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5195 -> Patchwork_10898 = == Summary - SUCCESS == No regressions found.

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev7)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev7) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52167/ State : failure == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5195 -> Patchwork_10897 = == Summary - FAILURE == Serious

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev7)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev7) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52167/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim sparse origin/drm-tip Sparse version: v0.5.2 Commit: locking/lockdep: restore cross-release

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev7)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev7) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52167/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip 0449bd050c17 locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks -:9:

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Cache the error string (rev6)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Cache the error string (rev6) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/46777/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5195 -> Patchwork_10896 = == Summary - SUCCESS == No regressions found. External URL:

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for drm/i915: Cache the error string (rev6)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Cache the error string (rev6) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/46777/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim sparse origin/drm-tip Sparse version: v0.5.2 Commit: drm/i915: Cache the error string +drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c:934:23:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 23-11-18 14:15:11, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 23-11-18 13:30:57, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:15:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > Just a bit

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] HAX FOR CI: Enable cross-release

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Only way to convince our CI to enable stuff that's new and defaulting to off. Obviously not for merging. v2: Also enable fullstack backtraces. v3: Try to chase this elusive stack trace corruption CI is seeing. v4: Make it compile. Silly me. v5: Even sillier me. v6: Still confused.

[Intel-gfx] [CI] drm/i915: Cache the error string

2018-11-23 Thread Chris Wilson
Currently, we convert the error state into a string every time we read from sysfs (and sysfs reads in page size (4KiB) chunks). We do try to window the string and only capture the portion that is being read, but that means that we must always convert up to the window to find the start. For a very

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 23/11/2018 13:12, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:46 PM Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 23-11-18 13:38:38, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: We need to make sure implementations

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 23-11-18 13:30:57, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:15:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:46 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 23-11-18 13:38:38, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a >

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev6)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev6) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52167/ State : failure == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5194 -> Patchwork_10895 = == Summary - FAILURE == Serious

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 07/25] drm/i915: Cache the error string

2018-11-23 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2018-11-23 12:52:28) > Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-11-02 18:12:14) > > Currently, we convert the error state into a string every time we read > > from sysfs (and sysfs reads in page size (4KiB) chunks). We do try to > > window the string and only capture the portion that is

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev6)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev6) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52167/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim sparse origin/drm-tip Sparse version: v0.5.2 Commit: locking/lockdep: restore cross-release

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 07/25] drm/i915: Cache the error string

2018-11-23 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-11-02 18:12:14) > Currently, we convert the error state into a string every time we read > from sysfs (and sysfs reads in page size (4KiB) chunks). We do try to > window the string and only capture the portion that is being read, but > that means that we must always

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev6)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev6) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52167/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip e235509cc27d locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks -:9:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 23-11-18 13:38:38, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > > > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] HAX FOR CI: Enable cross-release

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Only way to convince our CI to enable stuff that's new and defaulting to off. Obviously not for merging. v2: Also enable fullstack backtraces. v3: Try to chase this elusive stack trace corruption CI is seeing. v4: Make it compile. Silly me. v5: Even sillier me. Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 0/7] Make GEN macros more similar

2018-11-23 Thread Jani Nikula
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 11:23:46AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> Don't know, it's my opinion at least and more people are welcome to chime in >> with theirs. > > Any others to chime in on this? Jani, Ville, Rodrigo? Please hold until all aspects

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 23-11-18 13:30:57, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:15:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 3/7] drm/i915: replace IS_GEN with GT_GEN(..., N)

2018-11-23 Thread Jani Nikula
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 01:51:19PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >> Define GT_GEN() similarly to our GT_GEN_RANGE() and convert users of >> IS_GEN to pss the gen as parameter. This prepares for the addition >> of display gen checks by renaming the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > > catch it. > > > > I'm not sure whether

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/backlight: Fix backlight takeover on LPT

2018-11-23 Thread Jani Nikula
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > On lynxpoint the bios sometimes sets up the backlight using the CPU > display, but the driver expects using the PWM PCH override register. > > Read the value from the CPU register, then convert it to the other > units by converting from the old

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:15:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier > > implementation might fail when it's not allowed

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Make CHICKEN_TRANS reg not depend on enum value

2018-11-23 Thread Jani Nikula
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Imre Deak wrote: > Depending on the transcoder enum values to translate from transcoder to the > corresponding CHICKEN_TRANS register can easily break if we add a new > transcoder. Add an explicit mapping instead, by using helpers to look up the > register instance either by

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier > implementation might fail when it's not allowed to. What does WARN give you more than the existing pr_info? Is really

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 23-11-18 09:49:34, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 04:53:34PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2018-11-22 16:51:04) > > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > catch it. > > I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the > might_sleep() callsites trigger,

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52935/ State : failure == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5194 -> Patchwork_10894 = == Summary - FAILURE == Serious unknown changes coming with

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52935/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim sparse origin/drm-tip Sparse version: v0.5.2 Commit: drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52935/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip f741fb5349d8 drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency -:556: WARNING:LONG_LINE:

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Check MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM coherency

2018-11-23 Thread Chris Wilson
We use MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM internally (e.g. for gpu relocations) and so require that its are writes flushed to memory on demand. Verify this with a selftest. v2: Use variable lengths of submission queues as the delay between submit and checking is also crucially important for error detection. v4:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Christian König
Am 23.11.18 um 09:46 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:55:17PM +, Koenig, Christian wrote: Am 22.11.18 um 17:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter: We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't catch

[Intel-gfx] [PULL] drm-intel-next

2018-11-23 Thread Jani Nikula
Hi Dave - This one superseeds and includes everything in [1] as requested, and is thus pretty big. There are a number of commits that touch non-i915 files, but all relevant acks should be in place. There's also a drm-next backmerge in there. BR, Jani. [1]

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/gvt: Use after free in intel_vgpu_destroy_ggtt_mm()

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/gvt: Use after free in intel_vgpu_destroy_ggtt_mm() URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52910/ State : success == Summary == = CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5194_full -> Patchwork_10892_full = == Summary - WARNING == Minor unknown

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev5)

2018-11-23 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [01/13] locking/lockdep: restore cross-release checks (rev5) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/52167/ State : failure == Summary == CALLscripts/checksyscalls.sh DESCEND objtool CHK include/generated/compile.h CC

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] HAX FOR CI: Enable cross-release

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Only way to convince our CI to enable stuff that's new and defaulting to off. Obviously not for merging. v2: Also enable fullstack backtraces. v3: Try to chase this elusive stack trace corruption CI is seeing. v4: Make it compile. Silly me. Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter ---

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 04:53:34PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2018-11-22 16:51:04) > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier > > implementation might fail when it's not allowed to.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:55:17PM +, Koenig, Christian wrote: > Am 22.11.18 um 17:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > > catch it. > > > > I'm not sure whether

Re: [Intel-gfx] v4.20-rc1: list_del corruption on thinkpad x220

2018-11-23 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
Quoting Pavel Machek (2018-11-21 13:54:49) > Hi! > > > > My machine locked hard (thinkpad x220). After reboot, I found this in > > > syslog: > > > > > > Sounds like memory corruption..? Does not sound like easy to debug. > > > > Were you doing something GPU intense when you experienced the hard