From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mfwitten@gmail.com Subject: Re: 2.6.30: hibernation/swsusp lockup due to acpi-cpufreq Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4a4ebf45.08045a0a.3d7c.362e@mx.google.com> Return-path: Received: from mail-yx0-f188.google.com ([209.85.210.188]:53744 "EHLO mail-yx0-f188.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759550AbZGDCcf (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 22:32:35 -0400 Received: by yxe26 with SMTP id 26so3873696yxe.33 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:39:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg22661.html): > In fact, we need to do this entire thing differently. > > The basic problem is that cpufreq_suspend() is a sysdev thing, so it will > always be called with iterrupts off and *only* for CPU0. So, it looks like > the majority of things we do there is just unnecessary (at least). What's the status? This bug is driving me nuts. Thanks, Michael Witten