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

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>]

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") resolves those issues.
>
> 1) Resuming from suspend on i686 on (release candidates of) v3.11 and
> later triggers issues like:
>      traps: systemd[1] general protection ip:b738e490 sp:bf882fc0 error:0 in libc-2.16.so[b731c000+1b0000]
>
> and
>      traps: rtkit-daemon[552] general protection ip:804d6e5 sp:b6cb32f0 error:0 in rtkit-daemon[8048000+d000]
>
> Once I hit the systemd error I can only get out of the mess that the
> system is at that point by power cycling it.
>
> 2) I bisected that issue to commit
> 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking
> call"). The, rather impressive, bisect log is pasted at the end of this
> message. It took 23 builds to pinpoint this issue in the v3.10..v3.11
> range! Sadly, I have no clue why that commit triggers this issue.
>
> 3) Reverting that commit on top of v3.12-rc7 gets me a system that
> resumes without issues. (That revert needed one trivial context change.
> Note that I haven't actually tried v3.12-rc7 plain. But v3.12-rc6 and
> earlier also had this issue, so I'm sure the revert did the trick for
> v3.12-rc7.)
>
> 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.

Thanks,
Rafael