On 07/31/2014 12:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 06:23:18 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:

quoted

On 07/30/2014 10:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:

quoted

On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:

quoted

On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:

[cut]

quoted

quoted

quoted

This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483.

The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that internally 
too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month).

However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired 
to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring 
back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael 
realize this before proceeding.

I do have plans for a proper fix for the mainline (not stable branches), 
but plan to do that after the current set of suspend/hotplug patches go 
through. The fix would be easier to make after that.

quoted

quoted

quoted

OK, I'm convinced by this.

I suppose we should push it for -stable from 3.10 through 3.15.x, right?

Rafael, I think that is a good idea.  I'm not sure what the protocol is for
adding stable@kernel.org though ...

Rafael, let me (again) re-write the patch description.  I think Saravana has
raised an important issue that I have not clearly identified why it is safe to
remove this code in my patch description.  Also, I want to clearly identify the
appropriate -stable releases to push this out to.

I'll submit a [v3] later today or tomorrow.

In any case that's too late for 3.16 final, unless there's an -rc8.

Thanks for doing that work!

Ugh ... I tried this (yet another) large system and hit another panic :(.

I'm investigating now, and I'm hoping this is just something "new".

P.

Rafael