Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:55:20 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Revert patches fixing probing of interrupts
Message-ID: <20191202185520.57w2h3dgs5q7lhob@cantor>
Reply-To: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
References: <20191126131753.3424363-1-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20191129223418.GA15726@linux.intel.com>
 <6f6f60a2-3b55-e76d-c11a-4677fcb72c16@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6f6f60a2-3b55-e76d-c11a-4677fcb72c16@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun Dec 01 19, Stefan Berger wrote:
>On 11/29/19 5:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>>Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due
>>>to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems
>>Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue?
>
>
>The reverts fix 'the interrupt storm issue' that they are causing on=20
>some systems but don't fix the issue with the interrupt mode not being=20
>used. I was hoping Jerry would get access to a system faster but this=20
>didn't seem to be the case. So sending these patches seemed the better=20
>solution than leaving 5.4.x with the problem but going back to when it=20
>worked 'better.'
>

I finally heard back from IT support, and unfortunately they don't
have any T490s systems to give out on temp loan. So I can only send
patched kernels to the end user that had the problem.

>
>>
>>This is wrong way to move forward. The root cause must be identified
>>first and then decide actions like always in any situation.
>>
>>/Jarkko
>
>