On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 02:42:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 01:00:13 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, June 15, 2015 07:56:05 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier
> > > wrote:
> > > > Below is a more sophisticated,
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 01:00:13 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 15, 2015 07:56:05 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier
> > wrote:
> > > Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a
> > > changelog and
> > > all. It
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 02:42:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 01:00:13 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, June 15, 2015 07:56:05 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com
wrote:
Below is a more
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 01:00:13 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, June 15, 2015 07:56:05 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com
wrote:
Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a
changelog and
all.
On Monday, June 15, 2015 07:56:05 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a changelog
> > and
> > all. It works for me, but more testing would be much appreciated.
>
> Yes, the patch
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a changelog and
> all. It works for me, but more testing would be much appreciated.
Yes, the patch works as expected:
Tested-by: Roland Dreier
It does change /proc/ioports
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com wrote:
Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a changelog and
all. It works for me, but more testing would be much appreciated.
Yes, the patch works as expected:
Tested-by: Roland Dreier
On Monday, June 15, 2015 07:56:05 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com wrote:
Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a changelog
and
all. It works for me, but more testing would be much appreciated.
Yes,
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a changelog and
> all. It works for me, but more testing would be much appreciated.
Great, I'm convinced by your reasoning that this makes sense. I'm
building 3.10.80
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Below is a more sophisticated, so to speak, version of it with a changelog and
all. It works for me, but more testing would be much appreciated.
Great, I'm convinced by your reasoning that this makes sense. I'm
On Friday, June 12, 2015 08:01:15 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Changing the ordering between those two routines would work around that
> > problem,
> > but in my view that wouldn't be a proper fix. In fact, the role of
> >
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Changing the ordering between those two routines would work around that
> problem,
> but in my view that wouldn't be a proper fix. In fact, the role of
> reserve_range()
> is to reserve the resources so as to prevent them from being
On Friday, June 12, 2015 08:01:15 AM Roland Dreier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Changing the ordering between those two routines would work around that
problem,
but in my view that wouldn't be a proper fix. In fact, the role of
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Changing the ordering between those two routines would work around that
problem,
but in my view that wouldn't be a proper fix. In fact, the role of
reserve_range()
is to reserve the resources so as to prevent them
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:01:40 PM Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Can you please file a bug at bugzilla.kernel.org to track this and attach
> > the output of acpidump from the affected system in there?
>
> Done:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Can you please file a bug at bugzilla.kernel.org to track this and attach
> the output of acpidump from the affected system in there?
Done: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99831
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:01:40 PM Roland Dreier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Can you please file a bug at bugzilla.kernel.org to track this and attach
the output of acpidump from the affected system in there?
Done:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Can you please file a bug at bugzilla.kernel.org to track this and attach
the output of acpidump from the affected system in there?
Done: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99831
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe
On Tuesday, June 09, 2015 04:51:35 PM Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > I understand that the change here fixed another regression, but I'm
> > wondering if there's a way to make everyone happy here? I can provide
> > debugging info from my system as
On Tuesday, June 09, 2015 04:51:35 PM Roland Dreier wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com wrote:
I understand that the change here fixed another regression, but I'm
wondering if there's a way to make everyone happy here? I can provide
debugging info
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> I understand that the change here fixed another regression, but I'm
> wondering if there's a way to make everyone happy here? I can provide
> debugging info from my system as required...
Maybe sent my mail too quickly, as I have some
Hi, I recently updated from 3.10.79 to 3.10.80, and my system wouldn't
boot any more. I tracked this down to commit 92c934b10ec3 ("ACPI /
init: Fix the ordering of acpi_reserve_resources()"). With that
commit reverted, my system is OK again.
What happens is that ahci fails to initialize because
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Roland Dreier rol...@purestorage.com wrote:
I understand that the change here fixed another regression, but I'm
wondering if there's a way to make everyone happy here? I can provide
debugging info from my system as required...
Maybe sent my mail too quickly, as
Hi, I recently updated from 3.10.79 to 3.10.80, and my system wouldn't
boot any more. I tracked this down to commit 92c934b10ec3 (ACPI /
init: Fix the ordering of acpi_reserve_resources()). With that
commit reverted, my system is OK again.
What happens is that ahci fails to initialize because
24 matches
Mail list logo
