Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 May 2015 21:33:56 -0700 | Subject | Re: suspend regression in 4.1-rc1 | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote: > > The merge commit is empty and both 80dcc31fbe55 and e4b0db72be24 work > properly but the merge is bad. So it seems like some of the commits in > either branch has a side effect which needs other branch in order to > reproduce. > > So've tried to bisect ^80dcc31fbe55 e4b0db72be24 and merged 80dcc31fbe55 > in each step.
Good extra work! Thanks.
> This lead to: > > commit 195daf665a6299de98a4da3843fed2dd9de19d3a > Author: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com> > Date: Tue Apr 14 15:44:13 2015 -0700 > > watchdog: enable the new user interface of the watchdog mechanism > > The patch doesn't revert because of follow up changes so I have reverted > all three: > 692297d8f968 ("watchdog: introduce the hardlockup_detector_disable() function") > b2f57c3a0df9 ("watchdog: clean up some function names and arguments") > 195daf665a62 ("watchdog: enable the new user interface of the watchdog mechanism")
Hmm. I guess we should just revert those three then. Unless somebody can see what the subtle interaction is.
Actually, looking closer, on the *other* side of the merge, the only commit that looks like it might be conflicting is
b3738d293233 "watchdog: Add watchdog enable/disable all functions"
which is then used by
b37609c30e41 "perf/x86/intel: Make the HT bug workaround conditional on HT enabled"
Does the problem go away if you revert *those* two commits instead?
At least that would tell is what the exact bad interaction is.
Adding Stephane (author of those watchdog/perf patches) to the Cc. And PeterZ, who signed them off (Ingo also did, but was already on the participants list).
Anybody see it?
Linus
| |