From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752047Ab1L3PHR (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:07:17 -0500 Received: from mail.tpi.com ([70.99.223.143]:3088 "EHLO mail.tpi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751391Ab1L3PHP (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:07:15 -0500 Message-ID: <4EFDD39D.30802@canonical.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:07:09 -0700 From: Tim Gardner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Jonathan Nieder , Thomas Gleixner , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Alan Cox , Phil Miller Subject: Re: [27/27] clockevents: Set noop handler in clockevents_exchange_device() References: <20111207165611.GA19872@kroah.com> <20111207165602.672902223@clark.kroah.org> <20111229120956.GA31878@elie.Belkin> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/29/2011 06:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> >> This is basically the reverse of 7c1e768974 (clockevents: prevent >> clockevent event_handler ending up handler_noop, 2008-09-03). The >> rationale for the latter still applies. > > Hmm. You seem to be right. Instead of applying this to stable, it > looks like we should revert it from mainline. > >> People have been reporting >> the analagous patch to this one causing hangs on resume in 3.1.y and >> 3.2 release candidates: >> >> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233033 >> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233389 >> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233159 >> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1227868/focus=1230877 >> >> So please consider reverting it for now. > > Thomas? It does seem to be broken and there do seem to be regression > reports about it. > > Should I revert it, or do you have alternative fixes? > > Linus > -- We (Ubuntu) are seeing this issue as well in both 3.0.13 and 3.2-rc6: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/24/33 Reverting that single patch alleviates the resume regression. rtg -- Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com