Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755173AbYLDEm0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:42:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752201AbYLDEmR (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:42:17 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:33857 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752123AbYLDEmQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:42:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:40:58 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Frans Pop , Greg KH , Ingo Molnar , jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, lenb@kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , tiwai@suse.de, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected) In-Reply-To: <200812040223.54341.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: References: <200812020320.31876.rjw@sisk.pl> <200812031220.36711.rjw@sisk.pl> <200812040223.54341.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1481 Lines: 38 On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Well, in principle it may be related to the way we handle bridges during > resume Ahh. Yes, that's possible. It's quite possible that the problem isn't resource allocation per se, but just the bigger complexity at resume time. This is a hibernate-only issue for you, right? Or is it about regular suspend-to-ram too? > but I really need to read some docs and compare them with the code > before I can say anything more about that. Surely, nothing like this > issue has ever been reported before. Well, how stable has hibernate been on that particular machine historically? Because the half-revert alignment patch (ie reverting part of 5f17cf) that made it work for you would actually have been a non-issue in the original code that was pre-PCI-resource-alignment cleanup (commit 88452565). So the patch you partially reverted was literally the one that made the Cardbus allocation work the _same_ way as it did historically, before 88452565. So if the new code breaks for you, then so should the "old" code (ie 2.6.25 and earlier). So the "hasn't been reported before" case may well be just another way of saying "hibernate has never been very reliable". Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/