Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc8 - T500 fails to suspend to RAM

Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc8 - T500 fails to suspend to RAM

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Lior Dotan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ever since I've upgraded to rc8, my T500 fails to suspend to RAM for the
> second time. Suspending for the first time works ok but when I resume and
> later try to suspend again the screen gets blank and the moon LED blinks
> forever. rc6 & rc7 as well as 2.6.31 worked great with out a problem.

Well, I don't see any particular change that might cause the symptoms you
describe between -rc7 and -rc8.  If this is 100% reproducible, I guess
bisecting is the only option at the moment.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc8 - T500 fails to suspend to RAM

[Lior Dotan]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Lior Dotan wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ever since I've upgraded to rc8, my T500 fails to suspend to RAM for the
>> second time. Suspending for the first time works ok but when I resume and
>> later try to suspend again the screen gets blank and the moon LED blinks
>> forever. rc6 & rc7 as well as 2.6.31 worked great with out a problem.
>>     
>
> Well, I don't see any particular change that might cause the symptoms you
> describe between -rc7 and -rc8.  If this is 100% reproducible, I guess
> bisecting is the only option at the moment.
>   
It is very easy to reproduce, I will try to bisect it.

Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc8 - T500 fails to suspend to RAM

[Lior Dotan]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Lior Dotan wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ever since I've upgraded to rc8, my T500 fails to suspend to RAM for the
>> second time. Suspending for the first time works ok but when I resume and
>> later try to suspend again the screen gets blank and the moon LED blinks
>> forever. rc6 & rc7 as well as 2.6.31 worked great with out a problem.
>>     
>
> Well, I don't see any particular change that might cause the symptoms you
> describe between -rc7 and -rc8.  If this is 100% reproducible, I guess
> bisecting is the only option at the moment.
>   
I tried bisecting it, not sure if it's any good but this is what I got:

ldot@topaz ~/linux/linux-2.6 $ git bisect bad
Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
[1456edbb1476db735715ddcc7ac306de587024eb] kconfig: Make zconf.y work 
with current bison
ldot@topaz ~/linux/linux-2.6 $ git bisect log
git bisect start
# bad: [648f4e3e50c4793d9dbf9a09afa193631f76fa26] Linux 2.6.32-rc8
git bisect bad 648f4e3e50c4793d9dbf9a09afa193631f76fa26
# good: [156171c71a0dc4bce12b4408bb1591f8fe32dc1a] Linux 2.6.32-rc7
git bisect good 156171c71a0dc4bce12b4408bb1591f8fe32dc1a
# bad: [b6b24c73d56a166a829318a1f06803ff9b54857b] spi: error status 
should be negative
git bisect bad b6b24c73d56a166a829318a1f06803ff9b54857b
# bad: [82abc2a97a4a3c7635c40e6dff571816062ec506] Merge branch 
'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ryusuke/nilfs2
git bisect bad 82abc2a97a4a3c7635c40e6dff571816062ec506
# good: [24dfb2b5867df24ba03b6c4418312e23b1300aa8] Merge branch 
'upstream' of git://ftp.linux-mips.org/pub/scm/upstream-linus
git bisect good 24dfb2b5867df24ba03b6c4418312e23b1300aa8
# bad: [e8e63cbf9a339c972eeb5ccf8777c8067bdfd869] oss: Mark loadhex 
static in hex2hex.c
git bisect bad e8e63cbf9a339c972eeb5ccf8777c8067bdfd869
# bad: [ad0cd62ab632afe9b562b5f09343c21e1521505d] 
arch/alpha/boot/tools/objstrip.c: Mark "usage" static
git bisect bad ad0cd62ab632afe9b562b5f09343c21e1521505d
# bad: [65166571800af0f63f21e5576d7db12d2bf73790] kconfig: Mark various 
internal functions static
git bisect bad 65166571800af0f63f21e5576d7db12d2bf73790

Cheers,
Lior

Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc8 - T500 fails to suspend to RAM

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 02 December 2009, Lior Dotan wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Lior Dotan wrote:
> >   
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Ever since I've upgraded to rc8, my T500 fails to suspend to RAM for the
> >> second time. Suspending for the first time works ok but when I resume and
> >> later try to suspend again the screen gets blank and the moon LED blinks
> >> forever. rc6 & rc7 as well as 2.6.31 worked great with out a problem.
> >>     
> >
> > Well, I don't see any particular change that might cause the symptoms you
> > describe between -rc7 and -rc8.  If this is 100% reproducible, I guess
> > bisecting is the only option at the moment.
> >   
> I tried bisecting it, not sure if it's any good but this is what I got:

Thanks for the effort.

> ldot@topaz ~/linux/linux-2.6 $ git bisect bad
> Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
> [1456edbb1476db735715ddcc7ac306de587024eb] kconfig: Make zconf.y work 
> with current bison
> ldot@topaz ~/linux/linux-2.6 $ git bisect log
> git bisect start
> # bad: [648f4e3e50c4793d9dbf9a09afa193631f76fa26] Linux 2.6.32-rc8
> git bisect bad 648f4e3e50c4793d9dbf9a09afa193631f76fa26
> # good: [156171c71a0dc4bce12b4408bb1591f8fe32dc1a] Linux 2.6.32-rc7
> git bisect good 156171c71a0dc4bce12b4408bb1591f8fe32dc1a
> # bad: [b6b24c73d56a166a829318a1f06803ff9b54857b] spi: error status 
> should be negative
> git bisect bad b6b24c73d56a166a829318a1f06803ff9b54857b
> # bad: [82abc2a97a4a3c7635c40e6dff571816062ec506] Merge branch 
> 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ryusuke/nilfs2
> git bisect bad 82abc2a97a4a3c7635c40e6dff571816062ec506
> # good: [24dfb2b5867df24ba03b6c4418312e23b1300aa8] Merge branch 
> 'upstream' of git://ftp.linux-mips.org/pub/scm/upstream-linus
> git bisect good 24dfb2b5867df24ba03b6c4418312e23b1300aa8
> # bad: [e8e63cbf9a339c972eeb5ccf8777c8067bdfd869] oss: Mark loadhex 
> static in hex2hex.c
> git bisect bad e8e63cbf9a339c972eeb5ccf8777c8067bdfd869
> # bad: [ad0cd62ab632afe9b562b5f09343c21e1521505d] 
> arch/alpha/boot/tools/objstrip.c: Mark "usage" static
> git bisect bad ad0cd62ab632afe9b562b5f09343c21e1521505d
> # bad: [65166571800af0f63f21e5576d7db12d2bf73790] kconfig: Mark various 
> internal functions static
> git bisect bad 65166571800af0f63f21e5576d7db12d2bf73790

This commit is not very likely to be the source of the issue.

Perhaps one of the commits you marked as 'good' was in fact a bad one.

Best,
Rafael