From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757189Ab3GVP0F (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:26:05 -0400 Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.4]:43075 "EHLO e28smtp04.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756670Ab3GVP0C (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:26:02 -0400 Message-ID: <51ED4E2D.5020908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:52:21 +0530 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kiko Piris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Linux PM mailing list Subject: Re: 3.10.1 cpufreq suspend/resume regression still present in 3.10.2 References: <20130722151653.GA7213@sacarino.pirispons.net> In-Reply-To: <20130722151653.GA7213@sacarino.pirispons.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13072215-5564-0000-0000-000008E8AC4F Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/22/2013 08:46 PM, Kiko Piris wrote: > Hi, > > linux-3.10.1 introduced a regression in cpufreq breaking suspend/resume > cycle for some people [1]. > > There were also some other threads about it in lkml. > > I see 3.10.2-stable was released some days ago. I couldn’t see anything > about fixing this regression reported in the changelog. > > And to be 110% certain, I compiled it and tried suspending/resuming; > it’s still broken. > > Is this going to be fixed in 3.10 stable branch? > The patches that fix that regression went into mainline just a few days ago as these commits: commit aae760ed21cd690fe8a6db9f3a177ad55d7e12ab Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat Date: Fri Jul 12 03:45:37 2013 +0530 cpufreq: Revert commit a66b2e to fix suspend/resume regression commit e8d05276f236ee6435e78411f62be9714e0b9377 Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat Date: Tue Jul 16 22:46:48 2013 +0200 cpufreq: Revert commit 2f7021a8 to fix CPU hotplug regression And both of them have been CC'ed to -stable. So they should be hitting the stable tree soon. Hmm, that reminds me.. whenever a patch cc'ed to stable hit the mainline, the patch signers used to receive an automatic email from Greg. I didn't get that for the above two patches.. Did the process change due to the recent discussions around -stable tree maintenance? Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat