Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:00:16 -0800 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: Regression in 2.6.25-rc3: s2ram segfaults before suspending |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Klaus S. Madsen <ksm@hjernemadsen.org> wrote: > > >> So while I'm fairly confident in that I bisected correctly, the number >> of attempts I had to go through to get a reliable result, and the fact >> that I cannot make the problem go away by reverting the current code >> to something similar, counts quite a lot against me. >> >> However I'm 100% confident that the problem appears between >> cf8fa920cb4271f17e0265c863d64bea1b31941a and >> 925596a017bbd045ff711b778256f459e50a119, which is something like 16 >> commits. I have been at both points in the tree at least 2 times, and >> confirmed that cf8fa920cb4271f17e0265c863d64bea1b31941a worked for me, >> and 925596a017bbd045ff711b778256f459e50a119 didn't. >> > > my guess would be that it's this commit that causes it: > > | commit 6c3866558213ff706d8331053386915371ad63ec > | Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> > | Date: Wed Jan 30 13:32:55 2008 +0100 > | > | x86: move all asm/pgtable constants into one place > > >> But I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that I'm aparently the only one how >> have encountered the problem? Maybe it's only a problem if one also >> uses PAE? (Thats just a wild guess to explain why I'm the only one >> seeing this). >> > > PAE activates NX on 32-bit. So we probably had an NX regression that got > fixed by the side-effects of one of the unifications. Does it start > working if you disable NX via the noexec=off boot option?
What's the state of play here? Is upshot that this change fixed a bug which broke s2ram, or caused a bug which broke s2ram?
J
| |