Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Thu 2017-12-14 12:47:56, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > But given this is already "regression fix for x86-64 caused regression > > on x86-32", I really believe we should merge trivial fix now, and do > > the cleanups / nicer

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Thu 2017-12-14 12:47:56, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > But given this is already "regression fix for x86-64 caused regression > > on x86-32", I really believe we should merge trivial fix now, and do > > the cleanups / nicer fixes sometime

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >> But given this is already "regression fix for x86-64 caused regression >> on x86-32", I really believe we should merge trivial fix

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >> But given this is already "regression fix for x86-64 caused regression >> on x86-32", I really believe we should merge trivial fix now, and do >> the cleanups / nicer fixes

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > But given this is already "regression fix for x86-64 caused regression > on x86-32", I really believe we should merge trivial fix now, and do > the cleanups / nicer fixes sometime later? The fix patch was already posted, but

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > But given this is already "regression fix for x86-64 caused regression > on x86-32", I really believe we should merge trivial fix now, and do > the cleanups / nicer fixes sometime later? The fix patch was already posted, but in another

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

Hi! > > But yes, Rafael's patch looks like the minimal one-liner. But I think > > we should do the %gs load early too for the 32-bit stack canary case, > > kind of like we need to do %fs for percpu base. > > I'll try to get to this in a day or so -- is that okay? Or should we > do some trivial

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

Hi! > > But yes, Rafael's patch looks like the minimal one-liner. But I think > > we should do the %gs load early too for the 32-bit stack canary case, > > kind of like we need to do %fs for percpu base. > > I'll try to get to this in a day or so -- is that okay? Or should we > do some trivial

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I'll try to get to this in a day or so -- is that okay? Or should we > do some trivial fix/revert and fix it for real next time around? I don't think we want some trivial fix/revert just to keep it working. This

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I'll try to get to this in a day or so -- is that okay? Or should we > do some trivial fix/revert and fix it for real next time around? I don't think we want some trivial fix/revert just to keep it working. This code is too fragile

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> I'm guessing that the real issue is that 32-bit

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> I'm guessing that the real issue is that 32-bit needs %fs restored early >>> for TLS. >> >> I

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> I'm guessing that the real issue is that 32-bit needs %fs restored early for >> TLS. > > I *think* you are right. > > Anyway, that should be

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> I'm guessing that the real issue is that 32-bit needs %fs restored early for >> TLS. > > I *think* you are right. > > Anyway, that should be easy enough to

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > >> > >> > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc >> >

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > >> > >> > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc >> > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to >> >

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

* Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > > fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

* Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > > fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and 64-bit. We undo that change on > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On 12/11/2017 04:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On 12/11/2017 04:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Monday, December 11, 2017 3:22:39 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Monday, December 11, 2017 3:22:39 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > > fix_processor_context() on 32-bit

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On 12/11/2017 12:20 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: On Sun 2017-12-10 13:58:23, Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On 12/11/2017 12:20 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: On Sun 2017-12-10 13:58:23, Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to fix_processor_context() on

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Sun 2017-12-10 13:58:23, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > > fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

On Sun 2017-12-10 13:58:23, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > > fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and 64-bit. We undo

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

> On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and 64-bit. We undo that change on > 32-bit. > Can you explain

Re: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

> On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc > (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to > fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and 64-bit. We undo that change on > 32-bit. > Can you explain what was wrong

[PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and 64-bit. We undo that change on 32-bit. While we are at it, fix a comment. Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek Fixes:

[PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines

After 4.15-rc2, suspend stopped working on Thinkpad X60. 5b06bbc (unintentionally?) reordered stuff with respect to fix_processor_context() on 32-bit and 64-bit. We undo that change on 32-bit. While we are at it, fix a comment. Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek Fixes: