[Maverick][SRU] More fallout from 22.214.171.124 update
Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski
herton.krzesinski at canonical.com
Mon Dec 5 14:06:51 UTC 2011
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:18:56AM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 03.12.2011 01:55, Herton R. Krzesinski wrote:
> > Besides them, I added two reverts related to a single regression,
> > instead of backporting a fix upstream:
> > Revert "xen: Use IRQF_FORCE_RESUME"
> > Revert "genirq: Add IRQF_FORCE_RESUME"
> > For the reverted patches, which introduces a regression
> > (http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/898139), I did not apply the upstream
Sorry, this was the wrong bug, this is the regression (the right URL):
> > fix "genirq: Add IRQF_RESUME_EARLY and resume such IRQs earlier".
> > I chose to revert them, because the upstream fix didn't apply cleanly,
> > it seems to require a similar backport as already applied on 2.6.32
> > stable series, but I didn't want to take a risky approach (the backport
> > isn't straightforward it seems), so I reverted them. May be Stefan wants
> > to take a look at this one.
> IIRC, the story here was that the actual fix was another patch before (I check
> to make sure that is in Maverick). But the Xen folks felt the approach to have
> flags in generic IRQ code was cleaner. Unfortunately this did not work as
> expected. The upstream fix needs some PM code rework (which I am not sure
> Maverick has or not).
> Long story short, if the real fix is in there, I would rather leave those two
> reverted patches out. Even more as there does not seem to be much longterm work
> going on, so the chance that we need them because other things build on top is less.
What is the fix you mention? Problem here is that "genirq: Add
IRQF_RESUME_EARLY and resume such IRQs earlier" doesn't apply cleanly on
maverick, and we should decide either to backport it, or apply the
reverts. I didn't understand if you ack the reverts or not, can you take
a look at backporting/checking this if we end up not applying the
More information about the kernel-team