From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH][v6] PM / hibernate: Print the possible panic reason when resuming with inconsistent e820 map Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:47:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20160828124738.GA10562@amd> References: <1445404900-29702-1-git-send-email-yu.c.chen@intel.com> <20160823094527.GG7276@linux-rxt1.site> <20160823100155.GA12738@sharon> <20160824013610.GA26119@linux-rxt1.site> <20160825110748.GA22104@sharon> <20160826195654.GD21442@amd> <20160828020710.GB5941@sharon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:59654 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755273AbcH1Mrm (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:47:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160828020710.GB5941@sharon> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Chen Yu Cc: joeyli , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun 2016-08-28 10:07:10, Chen Yu wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:56:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > What's the progress of this patch? Looks already have experts review it. > > > > > > Why this patch didn't accept? > > > > > This patch is a little overkilled, and I have saved another simpler > > > > > version to only check the md5 hash (as people suggested) for it. I can post it later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy to test and review it. > > > > > > > Here it is. As Rafael is on travel, it would be grateful > > > if you can give some advance on this, thanks! > > > > Better than last one. > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > + > > > + req = ahash_request_alloc(tfm, GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > what context is this called from? GFP_ATOMIC allocations like to fail... > > > It is in normal process context, OK, I'll change it to GFP_KERNEL. > > > +static int hibernation_e820_check(void *buf) > > > +{ > > > + int ret; > > > + char result[MD5_HASH_SIZE] = {0}; > > > + > > > + ret = get_e820_md5(&e820_saved, result); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > + if (memcmp(result, buf, MD5_HASH_SIZE)) > > > + e820_conflict = true; > > > > Passing return value using global variable is ugly. Can you just print > > the warning and kill the box here? > Do you mean get rid of the panic hooker and just print the warning > here? Yep, I'd do that... (And you probably want to rise the severity). Thanks, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html