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

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

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?

Thanks.