Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:35:18 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: 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 <pavel@ucw.cz> 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. Pavel
-- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |