From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753512Ab3KOXDk (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:03:40 -0500 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:58631 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752610Ab3KOXDc (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:03:32 -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 00:16:05 +0100 Message-ID: <5014016.kNGQWXsIS0@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.12.0-rc6+; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <7794021.qcx8jVI5m1@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <52865D6B.1080902@canonical.com> <19794987.1PROc0XFg1@vostro.rjw.lan> <7794021.qcx8jVI5m1@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 12:00:50 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? Rafael