On Wednesday, April 06, 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/04/2011 11:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 05, 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 04/04/2011 11:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Peter very consciously did not mark the fix for this commit as -stable > >>>> material. It was ineligible for -stable for multiple reasons: it by no > >>>> means > >>>> fixed a 2.6.39 regression and the fix was literally just a few days old. > >>> > >>> Has this issue been resolved in the mainline, BTW? > >>> > >> > >> Just to refresh my memory... is this an issue in mainline, or is it only > >> a problem in the backport (I'm wondering if the trampoline unification > >> patches might have accidentally solved the issue)? > > > > > > The problem is in mainline too, please fix ASAP. > > > > For the suspend/resume case this seems like the sanest way to fix it in > my opinion. However, I am a bit concerned since I'm still not sure > we're programming registers in the correct order, that is: > > MISC_ENABLE -> EFER -> cr4 -> cr3 -> cr0 > > I will look at this issue later this evening, but I wanted your opinion > on it.
Do you mean during resume? I think we can try to make the ordering more appropriate, but I'm not really sure it would be a good idea to do that in the same patch. Probably not. Also, our current ordering has never been reported to cause problems to anyone. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
