Re: [PATCH] revert "swsusp: fix breakage with swap on lvm"

Re: [PATCH] revert "swsusp: fix breakage with swap on lvm"

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 05:02:22PM +0000, Linux Kernel wrote:
 > commit 2b322ce210aec74ae0d02938d3a01e29fe079469
 > tree a9cb9aa9530cadacae62caf009db506db16eb3c1
 > parent bdaff4a331db46f3bd953f413316c4603c4004b4
 > author Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:59:58 -0800
 > committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:38:07 -0800
 > 
 > [PATCH] revert "swsusp: fix breakage with swap on lvm"
 > 
 > This was a temporary thing for 2.6.16.
 > 
 > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
 > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
 > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
 > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
 > 
 >  kernel/power/swsusp.c |    4 +++-
 >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 > 
 > diff --git a/kernel/power/swsusp.c b/kernel/power/swsusp.c
 > index 2d9d08f..4e90905 100644
 > --- a/kernel/power/swsusp.c
 > +++ b/kernel/power/swsusp.c
 > @@ -153,11 +153,13 @@ static int swsusp_swap_check(void) /* Th
 >  {
 >  	int i;
 >  
 > +	if (!swsusp_resume_device)
 > +		return -ENODEV;
 >  	spin_lock(&swap_lock);
 >  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_SWAPFILES; i++) {
 >  		if (!(swap_info[i].flags & SWP_WRITEOK))
 >  			continue;
 > -		if (!swsusp_resume_device || is_resume_device(swap_info + i)) {
 > +		if (is_resume_device(swap_info + i)) {
 >  			spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
 >  			root_swap = i;
 >  			return 0;

So, now I'm getting bug reports from users about .17rc breaking
their resume again. (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194784)

If this was a temporary thing, what should we be doing to keep
old installations working ?

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: [PATCH] revert "swsusp: fix breakage with swap on lvm"

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 12 June 2006 02:08, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 05:02:22PM +0000, Linux Kernel wrote:
>  > commit 2b322ce210aec74ae0d02938d3a01e29fe079469
>  > tree a9cb9aa9530cadacae62caf009db506db16eb3c1
>  > parent bdaff4a331db46f3bd953f413316c4603c4004b4
>  > author Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:59:58 -0800
>  > committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:38:07 -0800
>  > 
>  > [PATCH] revert "swsusp: fix breakage with swap on lvm"
>  > 
>  > This was a temporary thing for 2.6.16.
>  > 
>  > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
>  > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
>  > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
>  > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
>  > 
>  >  kernel/power/swsusp.c |    4 +++-
>  >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  > 
>  > diff --git a/kernel/power/swsusp.c b/kernel/power/swsusp.c
>  > index 2d9d08f..4e90905 100644
>  > --- a/kernel/power/swsusp.c
>  > +++ b/kernel/power/swsusp.c
>  > @@ -153,11 +153,13 @@ static int swsusp_swap_check(void) /* Th
>  >  {
>  >  	int i;
>  >  
>  > +	if (!swsusp_resume_device)
>  > +		return -ENODEV;
>  >  	spin_lock(&swap_lock);
>  >  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_SWAPFILES; i++) {
>  >  		if (!(swap_info[i].flags & SWP_WRITEOK))
>  >  			continue;
>  > -		if (!swsusp_resume_device || is_resume_device(swap_info + i)) {
>  > +		if (is_resume_device(swap_info + i)) {
>  >  			spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
>  >  			root_swap = i;
>  >  			return 0;
> 
> So, now I'm getting bug reports from users about .17rc breaking
> their resume again. (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194784)
> 
> If this was a temporary thing, what should we be doing to keep
> old installations working ?

This was temporary, because the handling of it has been moved to
kernel/power/swap.c and mm/swapfile.c now, but the code has not changed much
(surely it doesn't return -ENODEV if swsusp_resume_device is not set).
Moreover, the new code has been in -rc since 2.6.17-rc1.

The report you are referring to is for the kernel called 2.6.16-1.2255_FC6. 
Is this just 2.6.17-rc* renamed or is it related to -rc in another way?

Greetings,
Rafael

Re: [PATCH] revert "swsusp: fix breakage with swap on lvm"

[Dave Jones]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:21:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

 > > So, now I'm getting bug reports from users about .17rc breaking
 > > their resume again. (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194784)
 > > 
 > > If this was a temporary thing, what should we be doing to keep
 > > old installations working ?
 > 
 > This was temporary, because the handling of it has been moved to
 > kernel/power/swap.c and mm/swapfile.c now, but the code has not changed much
 > (surely it doesn't return -ENODEV if swsusp_resume_device is not set).
 > Moreover, the new code has been in -rc since 2.6.17-rc1.
 > 
 > The report you are referring to is for the kernel called 2.6.16-1.2255_FC6. 
 > Is this just 2.6.17-rc* renamed or is it related to -rc in another way?

Yes, it's .17rc6.
(They only become a 2.6.17-x after .17 is final)

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: [PATCH] revert "swsusp: fix breakage with swap on lvm"

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 12 June 2006 14:25, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:21:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
>  > > So, now I'm getting bug reports from users about .17rc breaking
>  > > their resume again. (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194784)
>  > > 
>  > > If this was a temporary thing, what should we be doing to keep
>  > > old installations working ?
>  > 
>  > This was temporary, because the handling of it has been moved to
>  > kernel/power/swap.c and mm/swapfile.c now, but the code has not changed much
>  > (surely it doesn't return -ENODEV if swsusp_resume_device is not set).
>  > Moreover, the new code has been in -rc since 2.6.17-rc1.
>  > 
>  > The report you are referring to is for the kernel called 2.6.16-1.2255_FC6. 
>  > Is this just 2.6.17-rc* renamed or is it related to -rc in another way?
> 
> Yes, it's .17rc6.
> (They only become a 2.6.17-x after .17 is final)

Clear.

Well, I need some more information.

I don't think the breakage has been caused by any of my patches this time, so
I'll have to figure out what else might have caused it.  [The problem is last
significant changes in swsusp that might be related to this were commited
a couple of months ago. ;-) ]

Greetings,
Rafael