lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [BUG] x86: reboot doesn't reboot
From
Date
Keep in mind we already tried CF9 in the default flow and it broke things.  I'm willing to wait for reports about production machines, though, but I fully expect them.

On April 3, 2014 6:27:48 PM PDT, "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>On 2014/4/4 8:12, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 04/03/2014 04:52 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> On 2014/4/4 7:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:23:32 +0800
>>>> "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can you please send the dmi table out?
>>>>
>>>> I already did as a gz attachment to H. Peter. You were on the Cc,
>did
>>>> you not receive it?
>>>>
>>> Oh, I got it. This is a Preproduction machine.
>>> When reboot failed via a method (=e or =p), there are two case.
>>>
>>> Case 1: this method do nothing, pass the attempt chance to the next
>method
>>> Case 2: this method hangs the system
>>>
>>> I want to know if CF9 is case 1 or case 2. Could you please try the
>following
>>> patch *without* any reboot parameters?
>>>
>>> (1) If we didn't see any string, then EFI hangs your box.
>>> (2) if we see the first string but not the second one, CF9 hangs
>your box
>>> (3) if we see both, couldn't be, because BIOS works on your box.
>>>
>>
>> Given that this machine doesn't have EFI, it seems kind of obvious,
>no?
>>
>> -hpa
>
>Yes. it should be but I want to confirm.
>
>The current situation is,
>- we have one(do we know more?) preproduction machine hangs by CF9.
>- We have more than one(could be thousand known) production machine
>works by CF9.
>
>So, if I understand correctly(please correct me if I was wrong), I
>don't
>think the justification is enough to revert the patch. The patch
>includes EFI, CF9 and BIOS.
>
>I'm open to make Steven's machine work:
>(1) remove CF9
>(2) add DMI table
>(3) any other idea without a regression.
>
>I prefer (2) or (3) if better because if we do (1) we will probably
>receive some other regression reports.
>
>Thanks,
>-Aubrey

--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-04 04:01    [W:1.689 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site