[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 4.15-rc2: Regression in resume from ACPI S3
On Sun 2017-12-10 13:28:50, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Pavel Machek <> wrote:
> >
> > For the record... this should fix it. Tested on x60. More tests pending.
> This can't be right.
> At the very least, now the comment is wrong. And the comment does seem
> relevant for 32-bit too:

Well, take a look at orignal patch. I'm reverting 32-bit code to
v4.15-rc1 version, while keeping 64-bit code at v4.15-rc3
version. Yes, my brain hurts from looking at the code :-(.

In the meantime, I did short test on 64-bit machine. No ill effect observed.

Hmm. Aha. Yes, the comment is wrong... as it was in wrong in -rc1.

> > - fix_processor_context();
> > -
> > /*
> > * Restore segment registers. This happens after restoring the GDT
> > * and LDT, which happen in fix_processor_context().
> Notice? You've moved down the 32-bit fix_processor_context() call to
> after the loadsegment() calls, which smells wrong.

Yeah, I did. There's where it was in v4.15-rc1, and that's what ws
working for me.

> That said, this *all* smells wrong. Why is there a special
> fix_processor_context() function at all with different 32-bit and
> 64-bit behavior? This code is all written to be maximally confusing.
> I think this could do with some re-org to make it more logical. That
> "some random things done in fix_processor_context(), other random
> things done directly in __restore_processor_state()" makes no sense at
> all to me. There's no logic to what is done where.

I have to agree.

(cesky, pictures)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-10 22:36    [W:0.102 / U:2.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site