From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace/x86: fix x86-32 triple fault with graph tracing and suspend-to-ram Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:42:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20170328214218.qnvkyukxrpkquxvr@treble> References: <6559f36c6c6cdc2552b0bccf31de967367aa790d.1489672478.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com> <20170328113941.37469c9b@gandalf.local.home> <20170328155546.g7cbjblcehjfskyr@treble> <2443543.DcYTiKRKUq@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45548 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752515AbdC1Vml (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:42:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2443543.DcYTiKRKUq@aspire.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Steven Rostedt , Paul Menzel , Ingo Molnar , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Borislav Petkov On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:12:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:55:46 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:39:41AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:51:45 +0200 > > > Paul Menzel wrote: > > > > > > > With both patches applied `./analyze_suspend.py -config > > > > suspend-callgraph.cfg -filter i915` succeeds on a Lenovo X60t, so > > > > suspend and resume work perfectly, when tracing is enabled. > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Paul Menzel > > > > > > > > It’d be awesome, if you could tag both patches for inclusion into the > > > > stable Linux Kernel series. > > > > > > As long as they are not dependent on my patch series, I'm fine with > > > these going to stable. > > > > Stable sounds fine to me too. Both patches are independent of your > > x86-32 fentry patch set. > > Does https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9628301/ need to go into any particular > -stable series or just all of them? > > Or should a Fixes: tag be added to it? As far as I can tell this issue has been around since the function_graph tracer was introduced in 2008: 15e6cb3673ea ("tracing: add a tracer to catch execution time of kernel functions") (Though only for gcc >= 4.4.) Not sure if it's overkill to specify 'Fixes' for an 8+ year old bug? I guess it can't hurt anything. I think it can go in all of the stable branches. -- Josh