From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756176AbcH2VIK (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:08:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44182 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753436AbcH2VIJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:08:09 -0400 Message-ID: <57C4A438.6090800@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:08:08 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: pavel@ucw.cz, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, jlee@suse.com, bp@alien8.de, yu.c.chen@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][v8] PM / hibernate: Verify the consistent of e820 memory map by md5 value Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:08:09 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [My apologies for breaking threading. I'm not sub'd to LKML ...] On Mon 2016-08-29 00:35:40, Chen Yu wrote: >+ if (memcmp(result, buf, MD5_DIGEST_SIZE)) { >+ pr_err("PM: e820 map conflict detected.\n"); >+ panic("BIOS is playing funny tricks with us.\n"); >+ } This should have a better explanation. Perhaps BUG("PM: BIOS e820 map conflicts with map from previous boot. S4/hibernate is not supported on this platform. Please contact your hardware vendor.\n"); or pr_crit(FW_BUG "BIOS e820 map conflicts with map from previous boot."); BUG("PM: S4/hibernate is broken on this platform. Please contact your hardware vendor for support.\n"); is more appropriate rather than having them filing a kernel.org BZ or contacting an OS company with a bug that cannot be resolved in software. There are some other instances in the kernel where we've told them to do the same, and it is appropriate to do so here. P.