From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753592AbaDDPgz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:36:55 -0400
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:54195 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753021AbaDDPgx (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:36:53 -0400
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:36:34 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG] x86: reboot doesn't reboot
Message-ID: <20140404153634.GA14519@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20140403113921.23dceb75@gandalf.local.home>
 <533D8516.1040803@zytor.com>
 <20140403121314.246b03a7@gandalf.local.home>
 <533DED74.6050202@linux.intel.com>
 <20140403194018.7c67aec7@gandalf.local.home>
 <533DF455.4040908@linux.intel.com>
 <533DF8D2.9060508@zytor.com>
 <533E0A94.5040007@linux.intel.com>
 <20140404151203.GA12370@srcf.ucam.org>
 <533ECC2C.6090505@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <533ECC2C.6090505@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 08:13:48AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 08:12 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:27:48AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > 
> >> The current situation is,
> >> - we have one(do we know more?) preproduction machine hangs by CF9.
> >> - We have more than one(could be thousand known) production machine
> >> works by CF9.
> > 
> > Production hardware should never require CF9.
> > 
> 
> There are a lot of things that shouldn't be.

Windows doesn't hit CF9, and production hardware is always tested with 
Windows, so. Adding CF9 may make things work in some situations but it 
clearly breaks them in others - we'd be better off spending our time 
figuring out why systems that appear to need CF9 won't otherwise work.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org