From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965928AbXJPXvR (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:51:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753228AbXJPXvF (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:51:05 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:38068 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753034AbXJPXvC (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:51:02 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Mark Lord Subject: Re: Regression: 2.6.23-rc9 okay, 2.6.23.1 resume problems Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:07:02 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Linux Kernel , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton References: <4712786B.3040009@rtr.ca> <47128C2C.5060502@rtr.ca> <471536E2.9040508@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <471536E2.9040508@rtr.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710170207.02732.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, 17 October 2007 00:10, Mark Lord wrote: > Mark Lord wrote: > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Sunday, 14 October 2007 22:13, Mark Lord wrote: > >>> Since upgrading to 2.6.23.1 from 2.6.23-rc9, resume-from-RAM has been > >>> misbehaving here. > >>> > >>> It takes much (+5-7 seconds) longer to resume *sometimes*, but not > >>> all/most of the time. > >>> And sometimes I get get flashing keyboard LEDs and have to hold the > >>> power button > >>> in for a full hard reset. > >>> > >>> With 2.6.23-rc8/rc9, no such troubles. > >>> > >>> Difficult to reproduce, other than perhaps once a day. > >>> Anybody want to fess up with a likely candidate? > >> > >> Not really, but if you rule out all of the POWERPC and MIPS patches, > >> there's > >> not much left ... > > > > Yeah, I didn't see much there either. > > > > I'll keep an eye on things over the next few days, > > and post again if it persists. > > > > I was using the powertop patches with -rc9, but not with 2.6.23.1. > > Maybe they helped (???). > > It still happens. Well, I have no idea, sorry. I also have not been able to reproduce it here ...