From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753492Ab3KOXL3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:11:29 -0500 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:64042 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751047Ab3KOXLV (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:11:21 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Joseph Salisbury Cc: rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [v3.11][3.12][Regression] ACPI / processor: Use common hotplug infrastructure Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:23:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1770440.aHQcEYdRzT@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.12.0-rc6+; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5014016.kNGQWXsIS0@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <52865D6B.1080902@canonical.com> <7794021.qcx8jVI5m1@vostro.rjw.lan> <5014016.kNGQWXsIS0@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:16:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:00:50 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, November 15, 2013 11:55:10 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Friday, November 15, 2013 12:44:11 PM Joseph Salisbury wrote: > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > > > > > A kernel bug affecting several users was opened against Ubuntu[0]. > > > > After a bisect, it was found the following commit introduced the regression: > > > > > > > > commit ac212b6980d8d5eda705864fc5a8ecddc6d6eacc > > > > Author: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > Date: Fri May 3 00:26:22 2013 +0200 > > > > > > > > ACPI / processor: Use common hotplug infrastructure > > > > > > > > The regression was introduced as of v3.11-rc1. > > > > > > > > This commit doesn't revert cleanly in 3.12, and requires the revert of > > > > other commits as well. I wanted to get your feedback since you are the > > > > author. > > > > > > Well, that commit has nothing to do with PCMCIA, so I'm not sure how the > > > breakage is related to it. > > > > > > Moreover, comment #8 reports 3.11.0-11.17 as working and the change you're > > > asking about should be in that kernel as well. > > > > Ah, so that was bogus. > > > > Well, I'm still not sure how the commit in question may affect PCMCIA. I have > > a test machine with PCMCIA and it boots correctly with 3.11+. > > The bisect could just trip over a different bug in that commit that was fixed > later. > > Moreover, comment #70 indicates that 3.11.0-11-generic works correctly for > someone. > > I'm also unsure what comment #43 means. > > And I wonder if the reported who "bisected" this can boot without PCMCIA? One more thing. Comment #32 says that the reporter could not reproduce the problem without "the -extras package which contains the PCMCIA drivers." So I'm wondering why exactly the PCMCIA drivers are in that package? Rafael