* [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix
@ 2017-05-30 20:15 Daniel Vetter
2017-05-30 22:10 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-30 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Airlie, David S. Miller; +Cc: Daniel Vetter, intel-gfx, dri-devel
Hi Dave (both of them),
topic/e1000e-fix-2017-05-30:
Just an e1000e crash fix that somehow got stuck in a trivial bikeshed,
see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/729312/
Sending this your way since not even the intel-internal escalation seems
to have worked out. If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not
return statements this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color
as needed. Also, it reliable spams dmesg, why does this take forever ...
we've carried this patch for a while no in our local fixup branch to keep
our CI happy. Pls make sure it reaches Linus' tree asap.
Thanks, Daniel
The following changes since commit 5ed02dbb497422bf225783f46e6eadd237d23d6b:
Linux 4.12-rc3 (2017-05-28 17:20:53 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/drm-intel tags/topic/e1000e-fix-2017-05-30
for you to fetch changes up to 4e5684f930587bd22565f404eb3c5e417a994ccc:
e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails (2017-05-30 09:47:28 +0200)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just an e1000e crash fix that somehow got stuck in a trivial bikeshed,
see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/729312/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wilson (1):
e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix 2017-05-30 20:15 [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-30 22:10 ` David Miller 2017-05-30 23:06 ` Dave Airlie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2017-05-30 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: daniel.vetter; +Cc: intel-gfx, dri-devel From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 > If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements > this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. That's not how things work. If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. Thanks. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix 2017-05-30 22:10 ` David Miller @ 2017-05-30 23:06 ` Dave Airlie 2017-05-31 5:54 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread From: Dave Airlie @ 2017-05-30 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller; +Cc: Daniel Vetter, intel-gfx, dri-devel On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 > >> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. > > That's not how things work. > > If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you > do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. I'm not really sure why Chris just couldn't respin already. Though really I think Chris should have just asked for a revert of the original patch that broke stuff, instead of trying to patch a driver if he doesn't have time to get the patch right for the maintainer. Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix 2017-05-30 23:06 ` Dave Airlie @ 2017-05-31 5:54 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 5:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: intel-gfx, David Miller, dri-devel On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >> >>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >> >> That's not how things work. >> >> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. > I'm not really sure why Chris just couldn't respin already. > > Though really I think Chris should have just asked for a revert of the > original patch that broke stuff, instead of trying to patch a driver > if he doesn't have time to get the patch right for the maintainer. Ok, can we pls revert 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") then? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix 2017-05-31 5:54 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 6:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie Cc: David Miller, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Jani Nikula, Jeff Kirsher, intel-wired-lan, netdev, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>> >>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>> >>> That's not how things work. >>> >>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. > > Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this regression just can't be fixed already. Not sure if it's really preferred if regression reports come incomplete, without bugfix and bisect attached. -Daniel >> I'm not really sure why Chris just couldn't respin already. >> >> Though really I think Chris should have just asked for a revert of the >> original patch that broke stuff, instead of trying to patch a driver >> if he doesn't have time to get the patch right for the maintainer. > > Ok, can we pls revert 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") then? > > Thanks, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix @ 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 6:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>> >>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>> >>> That's not how things work. >>> >>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. > > Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this regression just can't be fixed already. Not sure if it's really preferred if regression reports come incomplete, without bugfix and bisect attached. -Daniel >> I'm not really sure why Chris just couldn't respin already. >> >> Though really I think Chris should have just asked for a revert of the >> original patch that broke stuff, instead of trying to patch a driver >> if he doesn't have time to get the patch right for the maintainer. > > Ok, can we pls revert 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") then? > > Thanks, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix @ 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 6:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie Cc: netdev, intel-gfx, Linux Kernel Mailing List, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, David Miller, Jeff Kirsher On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>> >>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>> >>> That's not how things work. >>> >>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. > > Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this regression just can't be fixed already. Not sure if it's really preferred if regression reports come incomplete, without bugfix and bisect attached. -Daniel >> I'm not really sure why Chris just couldn't respin already. >> >> Though really I think Chris should have just asked for a revert of the >> original patch that broke stuff, instead of trying to patch a driver >> if he doesn't have time to get the patch right for the maintainer. > > Ok, can we pls revert 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") then? > > Thanks, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 15:08 ` David Miller -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2017-05-31 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: daniel.vetter Cc: airlied, intel-gfx, dri-devel, jani.nikula, jeffrey.t.kirsher, intel-wired-lan, netdev, linux-kernel From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200 > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>>> >>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>>> >>>> That's not how things work. >>>> >>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. >> >> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. > > And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report > complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and > the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its > sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real > functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this > regression just can't be fixed already. And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is less work than making several postings such as this one. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix @ 2017-05-31 15:08 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2017-05-31 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200 > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>>> >>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>>> >>>> That's not how things work. >>>> >>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. >> >> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. > > And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report > complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and > the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its > sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real > functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this > regression just can't be fixed already. And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is less work than making several postings such as this one. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix 2017-05-31 15:08 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller (?) @ 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jani Nikula @ 2017-05-31 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller, daniel.vetter Cc: airlied, intel-gfx, dri-devel, jani.nikula, jeffrey.t.kirsher, intel-wired-lan, netdev, linux-kernel, Jani Nikula On Wed, 31 May 2017, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is > less work than making several postings such as this one. When our CI hits tons of non-drm issues every merge window, I imagine our developers can start to get a little frustrated trying to get them fixed. Especially so when valid fixes like this get blocked by silly bikesheds from developers who don't even seem to have very many contributions upstream, and the maintainers don't respond. We have enough on our plates trying to get our own stuff fixed. While I understand why our developers aren't willing to jump through all the hoops, updated patch follows. Please let's move on. BR, Jani. Chris Wilson (1): e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.11.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix @ 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jani Nikula @ 2017-05-31 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On Wed, 31 May 2017, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is > less work than making several postings such as this one. When our CI hits tons of non-drm issues every merge window, I imagine our developers can start to get a little frustrated trying to get them fixed. Especially so when valid fixes like this get blocked by silly bikesheds from developers who don't even seem to have very many contributions upstream, and the maintainers don't respond. We have enough on our plates trying to get our own stuff fixed. While I understand why our developers aren't willing to jump through all the hoops, updated patch follows. Please let's move on. BR, Jani. Chris Wilson (1): e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.11.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix @ 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jani Nikula @ 2017-05-31 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller, daniel.vetter Cc: Jani Nikula, netdev, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, jeffrey.t.kirsher On Wed, 31 May 2017, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is > less work than making several postings such as this one. When our CI hits tons of non-drm issues every merge window, I imagine our developers can start to get a little frustrated trying to get them fixed. Especially so when valid fixes like this get blocked by silly bikesheds from developers who don't even seem to have very many contributions upstream, and the maintainers don't respond. We have enough on our plates trying to get our own stuff fixed. While I understand why our developers aren't willing to jump through all the hoops, updated patch follows. Please let's move on. BR, Jani. Chris Wilson (1): e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.11.0 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula (?) @ 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jani Nikula @ 2017-05-31 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller, daniel.vetter Cc: airlied, intel-gfx, dri-devel, jani.nikula, jeffrey.t.kirsher, intel-wired-lan, netdev, linux-kernel, Chris Wilson, Jani Nikula, Tvrtko Ursulin, Dave Ertman, Bruce Allan From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), [ 429.994338] ACPI : EC: event blocked [ 429.994633] e1000e: EEE TX LPI TIMER: 00000011 [ 430.955451] pci_pm_suspend(): e1000e_pm_suspend+0x0/0x30 [e1000e] returns -2 [ 430.955454] dpm_run_callback(): pci_pm_suspend+0x0/0x140 returns -2 [ 430.955458] PM: Device 0000:00:19.0 failed to suspend async: error -2 [ 430.955581] PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected [ 430.957709] ACPI : EC: event unblocked lead to complete failure: [ 432.585002] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 432.585013] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 8372 at kernel/irq/manage.c:1478 __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 [ 432.585015] Trying to free already-free IRQ 20 [ 432.585016] Modules linked in: cdc_ncm usbnet x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp mii crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep lpc_ich snd_hda_core snd_pcm mei_me mei sdhci_pci sdhci i915 mmc_core e1000e ptp pps_core prime_numbers [ 432.585042] CPU: 3 PID: 8372 Comm: kworker/u16:40 Tainted: G U 4.10.0-rc8-CI-Patchwork_3870+ #1 [ 432.585044] Hardware name: LENOVO 2356GCG/2356GCG, BIOS G7ET31WW (1.13 ) 07/02/2012 [ 432.585050] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn [ 432.585051] Call Trace: [ 432.585058] dump_stack+0x67/0x92 [ 432.585062] __warn+0xc6/0xe0 [ 432.585065] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50 [ 432.585070] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x49/0x60 [ 432.585072] __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 [ 432.585075] free_irq+0x34/0x80 [ 432.585089] e1000_free_irq+0x65/0x70 [e1000e] [ 432.585098] e1000e_pm_freeze+0x7a/0xb0 [e1000e] [ 432.585106] e1000e_pm_suspend+0x21/0x30 [e1000e] [ 432.585113] pci_pm_suspend+0x71/0x140 [ 432.585118] dpm_run_callback+0x6f/0x330 [ 432.585122] ? pci_pm_freeze+0xe0/0xe0 [ 432.585125] __device_suspend+0xea/0x330 [ 432.585128] async_suspend+0x1a/0x90 [ 432.585132] async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0x160 [ 432.585137] process_one_work+0x1f4/0x6d0 [ 432.585140] ? process_one_work+0x16e/0x6d0 [ 432.585143] worker_thread+0x49/0x4a0 [ 432.585145] kthread+0x107/0x140 [ 432.585148] ? process_one_work+0x6d0/0x6d0 [ 432.585150] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40 [ 432.585154] ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40 [ 432.585156] ---[ end trace 6712df7f8c4b9124 ]--- The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable behaviour. Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> [Jani: bikeshed repainted] Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c index b3679728caac..5cad688be609 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c @@ -6630,12 +6630,17 @@ static int e1000e_pm_thaw(struct device *dev) static int e1000e_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) { struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev); + int rc; e1000e_flush_lpic(pdev); e1000e_pm_freeze(dev); - return __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); + rc = __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); + if (rc) + e1000e_pm_thaw(dev); + + return rc; } static int e1000e_pm_resume(struct device *dev) -- 2.11.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jani Nikula @ 2017-05-31 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), [ 429.994338] ACPI : EC: event blocked [ 429.994633] e1000e: EEE TX LPI TIMER: 00000011 [ 430.955451] pci_pm_suspend(): e1000e_pm_suspend+0x0/0x30 [e1000e] returns -2 [ 430.955454] dpm_run_callback(): pci_pm_suspend+0x0/0x140 returns -2 [ 430.955458] PM: Device 0000:00:19.0 failed to suspend async: error -2 [ 430.955581] PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected [ 430.957709] ACPI : EC: event unblocked lead to complete failure: [ 432.585002] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 432.585013] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 8372 at kernel/irq/manage.c:1478 __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 [ 432.585015] Trying to free already-free IRQ 20 [ 432.585016] Modules linked in: cdc_ncm usbnet x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp mii crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep lpc_ich snd_hda_core snd_pcm mei_me mei sdhci_pci sdhci i915 mmc_core e1000e ptp pps_core prime_numbers [ 432.585042] CPU: 3 PID: 8372 Comm: kworker/u16:40 Tainted: G U 4.10.0-rc8-CI-Patchwork_3870+ #1 [ 432.585044] Hardware name: LENOVO 2356GCG/2356GCG, BIOS G7ET31WW (1.13 ) 07/02/2012 [ 432.585050] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn [ 432.585051] Call Trace: [ 432.585058] dump_stack+0x67/0x92 [ 432.585062] __warn+0xc6/0xe0 [ 432.585065] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50 [ 432.585070] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x49/0x60 [ 432.585072] __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 [ 432.585075] free_irq+0x34/0x80 [ 432.585089] e1000_free_irq+0x65/0x70 [e1000e] [ 432.585098] e1000e_pm_freeze+0x7a/0xb0 [e1000e] [ 432.585106] e1000e_pm_suspend+0x21/0x30 [e1000e] [ 432.585113] pci_pm_suspend+0x71/0x140 [ 432.585118] dpm_run_callback+0x6f/0x330 [ 432.585122] ? pci_pm_freeze+0xe0/0xe0 [ 432.585125] __device_suspend+0xea/0x330 [ 432.585128] async_suspend+0x1a/0x90 [ 432.585132] async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0x160 [ 432.585137] process_one_work+0x1f4/0x6d0 [ 432.585140] ? process_one_work+0x16e/0x6d0 [ 432.585143] worker_thread+0x49/0x4a0 [ 432.585145] kthread+0x107/0x140 [ 432.585148] ? process_one_work+0x6d0/0x6d0 [ 432.585150] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40 [ 432.585154] ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40 [ 432.585156] ---[ end trace 6712df7f8c4b9124 ]--- The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable behaviour. Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> [Jani: bikeshed repainted] Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c index b3679728caac..5cad688be609 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c @@ -6630,12 +6630,17 @@ static int e1000e_pm_thaw(struct device *dev) static int e1000e_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) { struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev); + int rc; e1000e_flush_lpic(pdev); e1000e_pm_freeze(dev); - return __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); + rc = __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); + if (rc) + e1000e_pm_thaw(dev); + + return rc; } static int e1000e_pm_resume(struct device *dev) -- 2.11.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jani Nikula @ 2017-05-31 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller, daniel.vetter Cc: Jani Nikula, netdev, intel-gfx, Bruce Allan, linux-kernel, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, Dave Ertman, jeffrey.t.kirsher From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), [ 429.994338] ACPI : EC: event blocked [ 429.994633] e1000e: EEE TX LPI TIMER: 00000011 [ 430.955451] pci_pm_suspend(): e1000e_pm_suspend+0x0/0x30 [e1000e] returns -2 [ 430.955454] dpm_run_callback(): pci_pm_suspend+0x0/0x140 returns -2 [ 430.955458] PM: Device 0000:00:19.0 failed to suspend async: error -2 [ 430.955581] PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected [ 430.957709] ACPI : EC: event unblocked lead to complete failure: [ 432.585002] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 432.585013] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 8372 at kernel/irq/manage.c:1478 __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 [ 432.585015] Trying to free already-free IRQ 20 [ 432.585016] Modules linked in: cdc_ncm usbnet x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp mii crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep lpc_ich snd_hda_core snd_pcm mei_me mei sdhci_pci sdhci i915 mmc_core e1000e ptp pps_core prime_numbers [ 432.585042] CPU: 3 PID: 8372 Comm: kworker/u16:40 Tainted: G U 4.10.0-rc8-CI-Patchwork_3870+ #1 [ 432.585044] Hardware name: LENOVO 2356GCG/2356GCG, BIOS G7ET31WW (1.13 ) 07/02/2012 [ 432.585050] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn [ 432.585051] Call Trace: [ 432.585058] dump_stack+0x67/0x92 [ 432.585062] __warn+0xc6/0xe0 [ 432.585065] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50 [ 432.585070] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x49/0x60 [ 432.585072] __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 [ 432.585075] free_irq+0x34/0x80 [ 432.585089] e1000_free_irq+0x65/0x70 [e1000e] [ 432.585098] e1000e_pm_freeze+0x7a/0xb0 [e1000e] [ 432.585106] e1000e_pm_suspend+0x21/0x30 [e1000e] [ 432.585113] pci_pm_suspend+0x71/0x140 [ 432.585118] dpm_run_callback+0x6f/0x330 [ 432.585122] ? pci_pm_freeze+0xe0/0xe0 [ 432.585125] __device_suspend+0xea/0x330 [ 432.585128] async_suspend+0x1a/0x90 [ 432.585132] async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0x160 [ 432.585137] process_one_work+0x1f4/0x6d0 [ 432.585140] ? process_one_work+0x16e/0x6d0 [ 432.585143] worker_thread+0x49/0x4a0 [ 432.585145] kthread+0x107/0x140 [ 432.585148] ? process_one_work+0x6d0/0x6d0 [ 432.585150] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40 [ 432.585154] ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40 [ 432.585156] ---[ end trace 6712df7f8c4b9124 ]--- The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable behaviour. Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> [Jani: bikeshed repainted] Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c index b3679728caac..5cad688be609 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c @@ -6630,12 +6630,17 @@ static int e1000e_pm_thaw(struct device *dev) static int e1000e_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) { struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev); + int rc; e1000e_flush_lpic(pdev); e1000e_pm_freeze(dev); - return __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); + rc = __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); + if (rc) + e1000e_pm_thaw(dev); + + return rc; } static int e1000e_pm_resume(struct device *dev) -- 2.11.0 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula (?) @ 2017-06-02 18:14 ` David Miller -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2017-06-02 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jani.nikula Cc: daniel.vetter, airlied, intel-gfx, dri-devel, jani.nikula, jeffrey.t.kirsher, intel-wired-lan, netdev, linux-kernel, chris, tvrtko.ursulin, davidx.m.ertman, bruce.w.allan From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), ... > lead to complete failure: ... > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable > behaviour. > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-02 18:14 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2017-06-02 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), ... > lead to complete failure: ... > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable > behaviour. > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-02 18:14 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2017-06-02 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jani.nikula Cc: daniel.vetter, intel-gfx, bruce.w.allan, linux-kernel, davidx.m.ertman, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev, jeffrey.t.kirsher From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), ... > lead to complete failure: ... > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable > behaviour. > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-06-02 18:14 ` David Miller @ 2017-06-06 20:46 ` Jeff Kirsher -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jeff Kirsher @ 2017-06-06 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller, jani.nikula Cc: daniel.vetter, airlied, intel-gfx, dri-devel, jani.nikula, intel-wired-lan, netdev, linux-kernel, chris, tvrtko.ursulin, davidx.m.ertman, bruce.w.allan [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --] On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > ... > > lead to complete failure: > > ... > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > Refactor PM > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > recoverable > > behaviour. > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-06 20:46 ` Jeff Kirsher 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jeff Kirsher @ 2017-06-06 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > ... > > lead to complete failure: > > ... > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > Refactor PM > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > recoverable > > behaviour. > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > > Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20170606/787612d9/attachment.asc> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-06-06 20:46 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jeff Kirsher (?) @ 2017-06-07 1:07 ` Brown, Aaron F -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Brown, Aaron F @ 2017-06-07 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T, David Miller, Nikula, Jani Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko, daniel.vetter, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev, airlied > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf > Of Jeff Kirsher > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch; intel- > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > ... > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > ... > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > Refactor PM > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > recoverable > > > behaviour. > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-07 1:07 ` Brown, Aaron F 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Brown, Aaron F @ 2017-06-07 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces at osuosl.org] On Behalf > Of Jeff Kirsher > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch; intel- > gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; > jani.nikula at linux.intel.com; chris at chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org; dri- > devel at lists.freedesktop.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org; airlied at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > ... > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > ... > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > Refactor PM > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > recoverable > > > behaviour. > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > > > Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-07 1:07 ` Brown, Aaron F 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Brown, Aaron F @ 2017-06-07 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T, David Miller, Nikula, Jani Cc: daniel.vetter, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev, Ertman, David M > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf > Of Jeff Kirsher > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch; intel- > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > ... > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > ... > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > Refactor PM > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > recoverable > > > behaviour. > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-06-07 1:07 ` Brown, Aaron F (?) @ 2017-06-20 8:49 ` Daniel Vetter -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-06-20 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brown, Aaron F Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T, David Miller, Nikula, Jani, Ursulin, Tvrtko, daniel.vetter, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev, airlied On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf > > Of Jeff Kirsher > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch; intel- > > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M > > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- > > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > > > ... > > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > > > ... > > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > > Refactor PM > > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > > recoverable > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does someone have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-20 8:49 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-06-20 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces at osuosl.org] On Behalf > > Of Jeff Kirsher > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch; intel- > > gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; > > jani.nikula at linux.intel.com; chris at chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M > > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org; dri- > > devel at lists.freedesktop.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org; airlied at gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > > > ... > > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > > > ... > > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > > Refactor PM > > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > > recoverable > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > > > > Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does someone have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-20 8:49 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-06-20 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brown, Aaron F Cc: dri-devel, Nikula, Jani, daniel.vetter, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, intel-wired-lan, Kirsher, Jeffrey T, netdev, Ertman, David M, David Miller On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf > > Of Jeff Kirsher > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch; intel- > > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M > > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- > > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > > > ... > > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > > > ... > > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > > Refactor PM > > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > > recoverable > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does someone have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-06-20 8:49 ` Daniel Vetter (?) @ 2017-06-27 19:28 ` Dave Airlie -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Dave Airlie @ 2017-06-27 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brown, Aaron F, Kirsher, Jeffrey T, David Miller, Nikula, Jani, Ursulin, Tvrtko, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev, airlied Cc: daniel.vetter On 20 June 2017 at 18:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: >> > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf >> > Of Jeff Kirsher >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM >> > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani >> > <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch; intel- >> > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >> > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M >> > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- >> > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail.com >> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo >> > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails >> > >> > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 >> > > >> > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > > > >> > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), >> > > >> > > ... >> > > > lead to complete failure: >> > > >> > > ... >> > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: >> > > > Refactor PM >> > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- >> > > > recoverable >> > > > behaviour. >> > > > >> > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") >> > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 >> > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org >> > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] >> > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > > >> > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. >> > >> > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. >> >> Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> > > Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does someone > have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? Guys this is a pretty serious regression, just left blowing in the wind, is anyone responsible for e1000e? Dave. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-27 19:28 ` Dave Airlie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Dave Airlie @ 2017-06-27 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On 20 June 2017 at 18:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: >> > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces at osuosl.org] On Behalf >> > Of Jeff Kirsher >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM >> > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani >> > <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch; intel- >> > gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; >> > jani.nikula at linux.intel.com; chris at chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M >> > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org; dri- >> > devel at lists.freedesktop.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org; airlied at gmail.com >> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo >> > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails >> > >> > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 >> > > >> > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > > > >> > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), >> > > >> > > ... >> > > > lead to complete failure: >> > > >> > > ... >> > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: >> > > > Refactor PM >> > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- >> > > > recoverable >> > > > behaviour. >> > > > >> > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") >> > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 >> > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org >> > > > Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org >> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] >> > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > > >> > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. >> > >> > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. >> >> Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> > > Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does someone > have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? Guys this is a pretty serious regression, just left blowing in the wind, is anyone responsible for e1000e? Dave. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-27 19:28 ` Dave Airlie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Dave Airlie @ 2017-06-27 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brown, Aaron F, Kirsher, Jeffrey T, David Miller, Nikula, Jani, Ursulin, Tvrtko, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev, airlied Cc: daniel.vetter On 20 June 2017 at 18:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: >> > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On Behalf >> > Of Jeff Kirsher >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM >> > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani >> > <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch; intel- >> > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >> > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, David M >> > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- >> > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail.com >> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo >> > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails >> > >> > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 >> > > >> > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > > > >> > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), >> > > >> > > ... >> > > > lead to complete failure: >> > > >> > > ... >> > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: >> > > > Refactor PM >> > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- >> > > > recoverable >> > > > behaviour. >> > > > >> > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") >> > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 >> > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> >> > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org >> > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] >> > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> > > >> > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. >> > >> > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. >> >> Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> > > Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does someone > have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? Guys this is a pretty serious regression, just left blowing in the wind, is anyone responsible for e1000e? Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-06-27 19:28 ` Dave Airlie (?) (?) @ 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jeff Kirsher @ 2017-06-27 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie, Brown, Aaron F, David Miller, Nikula, Jani, Ursulin, Tvrtko, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev Cc: daniel.vetter [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2907 bytes --] On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 05:28 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 18:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] > > > > On Behalf > > > > Of Jeff Kirsher > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > > > > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > > > > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll > > > > .ch; intel- > > > > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > > > > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, > > > > David M > > > > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- > > > > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail. > > > > com > > > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > > > > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > > > > Refactor PM > > > > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > > > > recoverable > > > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > > > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > > > > > > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. > > > > > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> > > > > Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does > > someone > > have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? > > Guys this is a pretty serious regression, just left blowing in the > wind, is anyone responsible for e1000e? This was submitted and accepted into David Miller's net-next tree. I can see if Dave can pull it into his net tree. DOes stable need to pick this up as well? [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jeff Kirsher @ 2017-06-27 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 05:28 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 18:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces at osuosl.org] > > > > On Behalf > > > > Of Jeff Kirsher > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > > > > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > > > > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter at ffwll > > > > .ch; intel- > > > > gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; > > > > jani.nikula at linux.intel.com; chris at chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, > > > > David M > > > > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org; dri- > > > > devel at lists.freedesktop.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org; airlied at gmail. > > > > com > > > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > > > > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > > > > > > > ?... > > > > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > > > > > > > ?... > > > > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > > > > Refactor PM > > > > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > > > > recoverable > > > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > > > > > > Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > > > > > > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. > > > > > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> > > > > Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does > > someone > > have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? > > Guys this is a pretty serious regression, just left blowing in the > wind, is anyone responsible for e1000e? This was submitted and accepted into David Miller's net-next tree. I can see if Dave can pull it into his net tree. DOes stable need to pick this up as well? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20170627/41559e5b/attachment.asc> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jeff Kirsher @ 2017-06-27 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie, Brown, Aaron F, David Miller, Nikula, Jani, Ursulin, Tvrtko, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev Cc: daniel.vetter [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2907 bytes --] On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 05:28 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 18:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] > > > > On Behalf > > > > Of Jeff Kirsher > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > > > > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > > > > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll > > > > .ch; intel- > > > > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > > > > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, > > > > David M > > > > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- > > > > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail. > > > > com > > > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > > > > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > > > > Refactor PM > > > > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > > > > recoverable > > > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > > > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > > > > > > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. > > > > > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> > > > > Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does > > someone > > have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? > > Guys this is a pretty serious regression, just left blowing in the > wind, is anyone responsible for e1000e? This was submitted and accepted into David Miller's net-next tree. I can see if Dave can pull it into his net tree. DOes stable need to pick this up as well? [-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --] _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Jeff Kirsher @ 2017-06-27 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie, Brown, Aaron F, David Miller, Nikula, Jani, Ursulin, Tvrtko, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev Cc: daniel.vetter [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2907 bytes --] On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 05:28 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 18:49, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] > > > > On Behalf > > > > Of Jeff Kirsher > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:46 PM > > > > To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Nikula, Jani > > > > <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>; daniel.vetter@ffwll > > > > .ch; intel- > > > > gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > > > > jani.nikula@linux.intel.com; chris@chris-wilson.co.uk; Ertman, > > > > David M > > > > <david.m.ertman@intel.com>; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; dri- > > > > devel@lists.freedesktop.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; airlied@gmail. > > > > com > > > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo > > > > e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 14:14 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:50:43 +0300 > > > > > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > > > > > > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > lead to complete failure: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: > > > > > > Refactor PM > > > > > > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non- > > > > > > recoverable > > > > > > behaviour. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > > > > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > > > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, please make sure this gets submitted to me soon. > > > > > > > > Expect it later tonight, just finishing up testing. > > > > > > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com> > > > > Hm, I seem to be blind, but I can't find it anywhere in -rc6. Does > > someone > > have the sha1 from Linus' git for this patch? > > Guys this is a pretty serious regression, just left blowing in the > wind, is anyone responsible for e1000e? This was submitted and accepted into David Miller's net-next tree. I can see if Dave can pull it into his net tree. DOes stable need to pick this up as well? [-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --] _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher (?) @ 2017-06-28 5:35 ` Daniel Vetter -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-06-28 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Kirsher Cc: Dave Airlie, Brown, Aaron F, David Miller, Nikula, Jani, Ursulin, Tvrtko, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, chris, Ertman, David M, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, netdev On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote: > This was submitted and accepted into David Miller's net-next tree. I can > see if Dave can pull it into his net tree. DOes stable need to pick this > up as well? Nah if it landed somewhere at least I'm happy, we can carry the fixup for a while longer locally. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-28 5:35 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-06-28 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote: > This was submitted and accepted into David Miller's net-next tree. I can > see if Dave can pull it into his net tree. DOes stable need to pick this > up as well? Nah if it landed somewhere at least I'm happy, we can carry the fixup for a while longer locally. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-28 5:35 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-06-28 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Kirsher Cc: Ursulin, Tvrtko, Nikula, Jani, netdev, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, Ertman, David M, Brown, Aaron F, David Miller On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote: > This was submitted and accepted into David Miller's net-next tree. I can > see if Dave can pull it into his net tree. DOes stable need to pick this > up as well? Nah if it landed somewhere at least I'm happy, we can carry the fixup for a while longer locally. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula (?) @ 2017-06-05 5:20 ` Neftin, Sasha -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Neftin, Sasha @ 2017-06-05 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jani Nikula, David Miller, daniel.vetter Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, netdev, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, jani.nikula, Chris Wilson, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, Dave Ertman, airlied On 5/31/2017 18:50, Jani Nikula wrote: > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > [ 429.994338] ACPI : EC: event blocked > [ 429.994633] e1000e: EEE TX LPI TIMER: 00000011 > [ 430.955451] pci_pm_suspend(): e1000e_pm_suspend+0x0/0x30 [e1000e] returns -2 > [ 430.955454] dpm_run_callback(): pci_pm_suspend+0x0/0x140 returns -2 > [ 430.955458] PM: Device 0000:00:19.0 failed to suspend async: error -2 > [ 430.955581] PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected > [ 430.957709] ACPI : EC: event unblocked > > lead to complete failure: > > [ 432.585002] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 432.585013] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 8372 at kernel/irq/manage.c:1478 __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 > [ 432.585015] Trying to free already-free IRQ 20 > [ 432.585016] Modules linked in: cdc_ncm usbnet x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp mii crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep lpc_ich snd_hda_core snd_pcm mei_me mei sdhci_pci sdhci i915 mmc_core e1000e ptp pps_core prime_numbers > [ 432.585042] CPU: 3 PID: 8372 Comm: kworker/u16:40 Tainted: G U 4.10.0-rc8-CI-Patchwork_3870+ #1 > [ 432.585044] Hardware name: LENOVO 2356GCG/2356GCG, BIOS G7ET31WW (1.13 ) 07/02/2012 > [ 432.585050] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn > [ 432.585051] Call Trace: > [ 432.585058] dump_stack+0x67/0x92 > [ 432.585062] __warn+0xc6/0xe0 > [ 432.585065] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50 > [ 432.585070] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x49/0x60 > [ 432.585072] __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 > [ 432.585075] free_irq+0x34/0x80 > [ 432.585089] e1000_free_irq+0x65/0x70 [e1000e] > [ 432.585098] e1000e_pm_freeze+0x7a/0xb0 [e1000e] > [ 432.585106] e1000e_pm_suspend+0x21/0x30 [e1000e] > [ 432.585113] pci_pm_suspend+0x71/0x140 > [ 432.585118] dpm_run_callback+0x6f/0x330 > [ 432.585122] ? pci_pm_freeze+0xe0/0xe0 > [ 432.585125] __device_suspend+0xea/0x330 > [ 432.585128] async_suspend+0x1a/0x90 > [ 432.585132] async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0x160 > [ 432.585137] process_one_work+0x1f4/0x6d0 > [ 432.585140] ? process_one_work+0x16e/0x6d0 > [ 432.585143] worker_thread+0x49/0x4a0 > [ 432.585145] kthread+0x107/0x140 > [ 432.585148] ? process_one_work+0x6d0/0x6d0 > [ 432.585150] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40 > [ 432.585154] ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40 > [ 432.585156] ---[ end trace 6712df7f8c4b9124 ]--- > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable > behaviour. > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > index b3679728caac..5cad688be609 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > @@ -6630,12 +6630,17 @@ static int e1000e_pm_thaw(struct device *dev) > static int e1000e_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) > { > struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev); > + int rc; > > e1000e_flush_lpic(pdev); > > e1000e_pm_freeze(dev); > > - return __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); > + rc = __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); > + if (rc) > + e1000e_pm_thaw(dev); > + > + return rc; > } > > static int e1000e_pm_resume(struct device *dev) Good. Let's pick up this patch. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-05 5:20 ` Neftin, Sasha 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Neftin, Sasha @ 2017-06-05 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On 5/31/2017 18:50, Jani Nikula wrote: > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > [ 429.994338] ACPI : EC: event blocked > [ 429.994633] e1000e: EEE TX LPI TIMER: 00000011 > [ 430.955451] pci_pm_suspend(): e1000e_pm_suspend+0x0/0x30 [e1000e] returns -2 > [ 430.955454] dpm_run_callback(): pci_pm_suspend+0x0/0x140 returns -2 > [ 430.955458] PM: Device 0000:00:19.0 failed to suspend async: error -2 > [ 430.955581] PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected > [ 430.957709] ACPI : EC: event unblocked > > lead to complete failure: > > [ 432.585002] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 432.585013] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 8372 at kernel/irq/manage.c:1478 __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 > [ 432.585015] Trying to free already-free IRQ 20 > [ 432.585016] Modules linked in: cdc_ncm usbnet x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp mii crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep lpc_ich snd_hda_core snd_pcm mei_me mei sdhci_pci sdhci i915 mmc_core e1000e ptp pps_core prime_numbers > [ 432.585042] CPU: 3 PID: 8372 Comm: kworker/u16:40 Tainted: G U 4.10.0-rc8-CI-Patchwork_3870+ #1 > [ 432.585044] Hardware name: LENOVO 2356GCG/2356GCG, BIOS G7ET31WW (1.13 ) 07/02/2012 > [ 432.585050] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn > [ 432.585051] Call Trace: > [ 432.585058] dump_stack+0x67/0x92 > [ 432.585062] __warn+0xc6/0xe0 > [ 432.585065] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50 > [ 432.585070] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x49/0x60 > [ 432.585072] __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 > [ 432.585075] free_irq+0x34/0x80 > [ 432.585089] e1000_free_irq+0x65/0x70 [e1000e] > [ 432.585098] e1000e_pm_freeze+0x7a/0xb0 [e1000e] > [ 432.585106] e1000e_pm_suspend+0x21/0x30 [e1000e] > [ 432.585113] pci_pm_suspend+0x71/0x140 > [ 432.585118] dpm_run_callback+0x6f/0x330 > [ 432.585122] ? pci_pm_freeze+0xe0/0xe0 > [ 432.585125] __device_suspend+0xea/0x330 > [ 432.585128] async_suspend+0x1a/0x90 > [ 432.585132] async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0x160 > [ 432.585137] process_one_work+0x1f4/0x6d0 > [ 432.585140] ? process_one_work+0x16e/0x6d0 > [ 432.585143] worker_thread+0x49/0x4a0 > [ 432.585145] kthread+0x107/0x140 > [ 432.585148] ? process_one_work+0x6d0/0x6d0 > [ 432.585150] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40 > [ 432.585154] ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40 > [ 432.585156] ---[ end trace 6712df7f8c4b9124 ]--- > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable > behaviour. > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > index b3679728caac..5cad688be609 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > @@ -6630,12 +6630,17 @@ static int e1000e_pm_thaw(struct device *dev) > static int e1000e_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) > { > struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev); > + int rc; > > e1000e_flush_lpic(pdev); > > e1000e_pm_freeze(dev); > > - return __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); > + rc = __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); > + if (rc) > + e1000e_pm_thaw(dev); > + > + return rc; > } > > static int e1000e_pm_resume(struct device *dev) Good. Let's pick up this patch. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails @ 2017-06-05 5:20 ` Neftin, Sasha 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Neftin, Sasha @ 2017-06-05 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jani Nikula, David Miller, daniel.vetter Cc: netdev, intel-gfx, linux-kernel, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, Dave Ertman On 5/31/2017 18:50, Jani Nikula wrote: > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > An error during suspend (e100e_pm_suspend), > > [ 429.994338] ACPI : EC: event blocked > [ 429.994633] e1000e: EEE TX LPI TIMER: 00000011 > [ 430.955451] pci_pm_suspend(): e1000e_pm_suspend+0x0/0x30 [e1000e] returns -2 > [ 430.955454] dpm_run_callback(): pci_pm_suspend+0x0/0x140 returns -2 > [ 430.955458] PM: Device 0000:00:19.0 failed to suspend async: error -2 > [ 430.955581] PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected > [ 430.957709] ACPI : EC: event unblocked > > lead to complete failure: > > [ 432.585002] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 432.585013] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 8372 at kernel/irq/manage.c:1478 __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 > [ 432.585015] Trying to free already-free IRQ 20 > [ 432.585016] Modules linked in: cdc_ncm usbnet x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp mii crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul ghash_clmulni_intel snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep lpc_ich snd_hda_core snd_pcm mei_me mei sdhci_pci sdhci i915 mmc_core e1000e ptp pps_core prime_numbers > [ 432.585042] CPU: 3 PID: 8372 Comm: kworker/u16:40 Tainted: G U 4.10.0-rc8-CI-Patchwork_3870+ #1 > [ 432.585044] Hardware name: LENOVO 2356GCG/2356GCG, BIOS G7ET31WW (1.13 ) 07/02/2012 > [ 432.585050] Workqueue: events_unbound async_run_entry_fn > [ 432.585051] Call Trace: > [ 432.585058] dump_stack+0x67/0x92 > [ 432.585062] __warn+0xc6/0xe0 > [ 432.585065] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50 > [ 432.585070] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x49/0x60 > [ 432.585072] __free_irq+0x9f/0x280 > [ 432.585075] free_irq+0x34/0x80 > [ 432.585089] e1000_free_irq+0x65/0x70 [e1000e] > [ 432.585098] e1000e_pm_freeze+0x7a/0xb0 [e1000e] > [ 432.585106] e1000e_pm_suspend+0x21/0x30 [e1000e] > [ 432.585113] pci_pm_suspend+0x71/0x140 > [ 432.585118] dpm_run_callback+0x6f/0x330 > [ 432.585122] ? pci_pm_freeze+0xe0/0xe0 > [ 432.585125] __device_suspend+0xea/0x330 > [ 432.585128] async_suspend+0x1a/0x90 > [ 432.585132] async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0x160 > [ 432.585137] process_one_work+0x1f4/0x6d0 > [ 432.585140] ? process_one_work+0x16e/0x6d0 > [ 432.585143] worker_thread+0x49/0x4a0 > [ 432.585145] kthread+0x107/0x140 > [ 432.585148] ? process_one_work+0x6d0/0x6d0 > [ 432.585150] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40 > [ 432.585154] ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40 > [ 432.585156] ---[ end trace 6712df7f8c4b9124 ]--- > > The unwind failures stems from commit 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM > flows"), but it may be a later patch that introduced the non-recoverable > behaviour. > > Fixes: 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99847 > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Ertman <davidx.m.ertman@intel.com> > Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com> > Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > [Jani: bikeshed repainted] > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > index b3679728caac..5cad688be609 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c > @@ -6630,12 +6630,17 @@ static int e1000e_pm_thaw(struct device *dev) > static int e1000e_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) > { > struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev); > + int rc; > > e1000e_flush_lpic(pdev); > > e1000e_pm_freeze(dev); > > - return __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); > + rc = __e1000_shutdown(pdev, false); > + if (rc) > + e1000e_pm_thaw(dev); > + > + return rc; > } > > static int e1000e_pm_resume(struct device *dev) Good. Let's pick up this patch. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix 2017-05-31 15:08 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller (?) @ 2017-05-31 16:23 ` Daniel Vetter -1 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller Cc: airlied, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Nikula, Jani, Jeff Kirsher, intel-wired-lan, netdev, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200 > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>>>> >>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>>>> >>>>> That's not how things work. >>>>> >>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. >>> >>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. >> >> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report >> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and >> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its >> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real >> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this >> regression just can't be fixed already. > > And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is > less work than making several postings such as this one. I guess next time around we should do even less, i.e. report the regression + bisect and then escalate this until the netdev folks fix it on their own? Like Jani said every -rc1 a pile of our CI machines keel over, and unfortunately this patch here isn't the only one which seems to not really move anywhere. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* [Intel-wired-lan] [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix @ 2017-05-31 16:23 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: intel-wired-lan On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200 > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>>>> >>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>>>> >>>>> That's not how things work. >>>>> >>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. >>> >>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. >> >> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report >> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and >> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its >> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real >> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this >> regression just can't be fixed already. > > And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is > less work than making several postings such as this one. I guess next time around we should do even less, i.e. report the regression + bisect and then escalate this until the netdev folks fix it on their own? Like Jani said every -rc1 a pile of our CI machines keel over, and unfortunately this patch here isn't the only one which seems to not really move anywhere. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
* Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix @ 2017-05-31 16:23 ` Daniel Vetter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 42+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2017-05-31 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller Cc: netdev, intel-gfx, Linux Kernel Mailing List, intel-wired-lan, dri-devel, Jeff Kirsher On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200 > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>>>> >>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>>>> >>>>> That's not how things work. >>>>> >>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. >>> >>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. >> >> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report >> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and >> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its >> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real >> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this >> regression just can't be fixed already. > > And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is > less work than making several postings such as this one. I guess next time around we should do even less, i.e. report the regression + bisect and then escalate this until the netdev folks fix it on their own? Like Jani said every -rc1 a pile of our CI machines keel over, and unfortunately this patch here isn't the only one which seems to not really move anywhere. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 42+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-06-28 5:35 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 42+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-05-30 20:15 [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix Daniel Vetter 2017-05-30 22:10 ` David Miller 2017-05-30 23:06 ` Dave Airlie 2017-05-31 5:54 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 6:10 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 6:10 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 15:08 ` David Miller 2017-05-31 15:08 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula 2017-05-31 15:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jani Nikula 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula 2017-05-31 15:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] e1000e: Undo e1000e_pm_freeze if __e1000_shutdown fails Jani Nikula 2017-05-31 15:50 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jani Nikula 2017-05-31 15:50 ` Jani Nikula 2017-06-02 18:14 ` David Miller 2017-06-02 18:14 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller 2017-06-02 18:14 ` David Miller 2017-06-06 20:46 ` Jeff Kirsher 2017-06-06 20:46 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jeff Kirsher 2017-06-07 1:07 ` Brown, Aaron F 2017-06-07 1:07 ` Brown, Aaron F 2017-06-07 1:07 ` Brown, Aaron F 2017-06-20 8:49 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-06-20 8:49 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-06-20 8:49 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-06-27 19:28 ` Dave Airlie 2017-06-27 19:28 ` Dave Airlie 2017-06-27 19:28 ` Dave Airlie 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher 2017-06-27 20:51 ` Jeff Kirsher 2017-06-28 5:35 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-06-28 5:35 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-06-28 5:35 ` Daniel Vetter 2017-06-05 5:20 ` Neftin, Sasha 2017-06-05 5:20 ` Neftin, Sasha 2017-06-05 5:20 ` Neftin, Sasha 2017-05-31 16:23 ` [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 16:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Daniel Vetter 2017-05-31 16:23 ` Daniel Vetter
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.