From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752694AbZHSTA2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:00:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752173AbZHSTA1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:00:27 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:44797 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752049AbZHSTA0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:00:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:58:55 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Frans Pop Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lenb@intel.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI processor: force throttling state when BIOS returns incorrect value Message-Id: <20090819115855.193ea8bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <200908171443.35622.elendil@planet.nl> References: <200908171443.35622.elendil@planet.nl> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (cc stable) On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:43:34 +0200 Frans Pop wrote: > If the BIOS reports an invalid throttling state (which seems to be > fairly common after system boot), a reset is done to state T0. > Because of a check in acpi_processor_get_throttling_ptc(), the reset > never actually gets executed, which results in the error reoccurring > on every access of for example /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling. > > Add a 'force' option to acpi_processor_set_throttling() to ensure > the reset really takes effect. > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13389 > > Signed-off-by: Frans Pop > Acked-by: Zhang Rui Unfortunately there are changes in linux-next which make this patch inapplicable in non-trivial ways. So we'll be needing one flavour of the patch for 2.6.30.x and 2.6.31.x (the patch you just sent) and a different flavour for 2.6.32. Or we preempt the pending linux-next changes and jam these patches into the tree first. > > This patch, together with the next one, fixes a regression introduced in > 2.6.30, listed on the regression list. They have been available for 2.5 > months now in bugzilla, but have not been picked up, despite various > reminders and without any reason given. > > Google shows that numerous people are hitting this issue. The issue is in > itself relatively minor, but the bug in the code is clear. > > The patches have been in all mu kernels and today testing has shown that > throttling works correctly with the patches applied when the system > overheats (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13918#c14). OK, that sucks. Guys, what happened here? Fixing regressions surely is our number one hair-on-fire priority, yet the ACPI developers have found other things to be doing for two and a half months and now we have a mess on our hands. Did this just fall through the cracks or is there some problem?