Re: [4.1-rc1][Hibernation failed] bisect result included

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	Dan Ehrenberg <dehrenberg@chromium.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	"Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
	"Lu, Aaron" <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
	Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [4.1-rc1][Hibernation failed]  bisect result  included
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 22:48:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1578315.Syt0DGTIqh@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55482B44.6060407@intel.com>

On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:30:28 AM Yu Chen wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 10:26 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04 2015 at 10:08am -0400,
> > Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, May 03, 2015 03:54:39 PM Chen, Yu C wrote:
> >>> Hi,all,
> >>> When we are doing QA test, a hibernation failor was found on latest kernel 4.1-rc1,
> >>> resume from hibernation failed with the following error:
> >>>
> >>> PM: Hibernation image not present or could not be loaded.
> >>>
> >>> Bisect shows following commit might trigger this problem:
> >>> commit 283e7ad0241155710f99a9f39d13313a53336926
> >>>
> >>> The  reason for failor is that, some distribution use klibc in initrd
> >>> to restore the image, and klibc will provide kernel with the device
> >>> format of major:minor:offset,
> >>> for example, 8:3:0 represents a swap partition, and klibc will
> >>> echo 8:3:0 > /sys/power/resume to resume the system manually.
> >>> However in current implementation, format of 8:3:0 will be regarded
> >>> as an invalid device, so restoring from hibernation failed.
> >>>
> >>> Do we need to add support for device format like 8:3:0?
> >>> I'm happy to debug more specifically if you can let me know what
> >>> would be of use, and I've also attached a temporary patch
> >>> for this problem, not sure if it is suitable,  thanks.
> >>
> >> It'd be better to send the patch inline so it is not lost in replies.
> >> Reproduced below.
> >>
> >> Dan, Mike, any chance to look at this?  It is a functional regression for
> >> some people.
> >
> > Sorry about this.  Wasn't aware that such a strange format was being
> > used.  The proposed patch looks good to me (formatting is a bit weird
> > though, the last "&dummy) == 3)) {" line shouldnt be needed if previous
> > line isn't indented so far.
> >
> 
> Thank you very much, Mike and Rafeal,
> I'll send another version titled with V2 for review.

Have you sent it already?  Where is it if so?

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.