Re: [PATCH] x86 ACPI: normalize segment descriptor register on resume

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Thursday, 26 of June 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:17:26 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, 25 of June 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
> > > > 
> > > > If this could be sneaked into Ingo's tree for some automated testing, 
> > > > that would be good.
> > > 
> > > sure - i have applied it to tip/out-of-tree. I'm equally nervous about 
> > > this change - it affects every suspend+resume cycle that people do on 
> > > those boxes which are working just fine currently.
> > > 
> > > btw., it would get a lot more coverage on my test-systems if this commit 
> > > in tip/out-of-tree:
> > > 
> > > | commit 01259383c345d13b70efcc549439927ae64dc66d
> > > | Author: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
> > > | Date:   Fri May 16 10:12:36 2008 +0200
> > > |
> > > |     sleepy linux self-test
> > > 
> > > was upstream and if it was enabled more prominently, instead of hidden 
> > > behind the rather obscure condition of:
> > > 
> > >   config PM_TEST_SUSPEND
> > >         bool "Test suspend/resume and wakealarm during bootup"
> > >         depends on SUSPEND && PM_DEBUG && RTC_LIB=y
> > > 
> > > and even then it needs certain other config options related to RTC_LIB 
> > > to actually work during bootup.
> > > 
> > > As a result of all this obstruction, the automated testing i do, which 
> > > builds and boots more than 1 random kernel per minute, will only run 
> > > this self-test once every hour or so.
> > > 
> > > I dont mind if this option breaks boxes (that its purpose: it does the 
> > > same thing that a real suspend+resume does and suspend+resume frequently 
> > > breaks boxes), but right now it's all obscured so heavily which makes 
> > > automated testing a lot harder than it should be.
> > > 
> > > it would be wonderful if this excellent suspend+resume self-test was 
> > > upstream and was more prominent! :-)
> > 
> > I thought it was in linux-next, wasn't it?
> > 
> 
> Len seems to think that Rafael seems to think that Ingo seems to think
> that this patch broke one of his boxes.
> 
> Is it so?

Yes, it is.

The box is apparently broken, but we've been unable to reproduce the breakage
on other very similar boxes, so far.  Investigation continues.

Thanks,
Rafael