Messages in this thread | | | From | Ben Hutchings <> | Date | Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:29:15 +0100 | Subject | Re: [Stable-review] [12/28] x86, cpu: Clean up AMD erratum 400 workaround |
| |
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 05:48:30AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 20:11 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:17:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 19:01 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 02:40:53AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:30 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@amd.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit 9d8888c2a214aece2494a49e699a097c2ba9498b upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remove check_c1e_idle() and use the new AMD errata checking framework > > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clean-up patches are generally not candidates for longterm updates. > > > > > > > > > > This was added because a follow-on patch required it. > > > > > > > > Ah yes, 'x86, AMD: Set ARAT feature on AMD processors' is using the same > > > > condition. > > > > > > > > Of course, that could have been backported by referring to the function > > > > that this removes, rather than pulling in a load of other changes with > > > > consequent risk of regressions. > > > > > > I prefer to take original patches for stable, it makes it easier in the > > > end. > > > > It makes what easier, when? What I see here is a bug fix that is much > > larger than necessary, with a consequent risk of regression that seems > > way out of proportion to the benefit. (What actually *is* the benefit > > of these AMD changes?) And we have had several serious regressions in > > the 2.6.32.y series recently, so I really don't think we are getting the > > trade-off right. > > We got a few new quirks added for AMD hardware platforms that fix > problems.
Maybe, but I still haven't seen anyone explain what those problems are!
> It took 3 patches to get there, yes, but now, as time goes > on, adding new ones is even easier as the .32 code matches the .39 code > in this area due to these patches being added. > > Now if you find problems in these, great, let me know and I will work to > resolve them. > > As for regressions, what are you referring to?
These are the regressions I'm aware of in the last few updates:
2.6.32.36: 'x86: Cleanup highmap after brk is concluded' broke hibernation on x86-64 and some x86-32 machines (reverted in .37) 2.6.32.36: 'signal: Prevent rt_sigqueueinfo and rt_tgsigqueueinfo from spoofing the signal code' broke glibc aio (fixed in .37) 2.6.32.34: powerpc kdump/kexec changes didn't compile on UP or 32-bit (fixed in .37) 2.6.32.30: 'x86 quirk: Fix polarity for IRQ0 pin2 override on SB800 systems' broke the revision check for other quirks (fixed in .34) 2.6.32.29: 'USB: Prevent buggy hubs from crashing the USB stack' broke MUSB on BeagleBoards (still unfixed?)
Ben.
-- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |