Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

2013-10-29 Thread Josh Boyer
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 07:39:23 PM Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki >> wrote: >> > On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: >> >> >> >> 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

2013-10-29 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 07:39:23 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki > wrote: > > On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: > >> > >> 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on > >> the two working i686s I still have lying

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

2013-10-29 Thread Josh Boyer
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: >> >> 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on >> the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on >> resuming from suspend. Reverting

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

2013-10-29 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On 10/29/2013 10:15 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 21:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 4) Should this commit be reverted? Or is there a better fix? In short, yes, it should. I've already queued up a revert of something very similar and

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

2013-10-29 Thread Paul Bolle
On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 21:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: > > 4) Should this commit be reverted? Or is there a better fix? > > In short, yes, it should. > > I've already queued up a revert of something very similar and I'm going > to revert this one

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

2013-10-29 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on resuming from suspend. Reverting 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")

Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

2013-10-29 Thread Paul Bolle
0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on resuming from suspend. Reverting 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call") resolves those issues. 1) Resuming from

Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)?

2013-10-29 Thread Paul Bolle
0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on resuming from suspend. Reverting 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call) resolves those issues. 1) Resuming from

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)?

2013-10-29 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on resuming from suspend. Reverting 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)?

2013-10-29 Thread Paul Bolle
On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 21:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 4) Should this commit be reverted? Or is there a better fix? In short, yes, it should. I've already queued up a revert of something very similar and I'm going to revert this one too. If

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)?

2013-10-29 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On 10/29/2013 10:15 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 21:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 4) Should this commit be reverted? Or is there a better fix? In short, yes, it should. I've already queued up a revert of something very similar and

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)?

2013-10-29 Thread Josh Boyer
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on resuming from suspend.

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)?

2013-10-29 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 07:39:23 PM Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on the two working i686s I still

Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 (select: use freezable blocking call)?

2013-10-29 Thread Josh Boyer
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 07:39:23 PM Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com wrote: On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: 0) Summary: ever since I