lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 regression ignored?
    Hello Chris, everyone,

    On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 04:40:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:23:53 -0400, "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
    > > On Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:41:45 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
    > > > On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote:
    > > > > [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael
    > > > > Wysocki to the message ]
    > > > >
    > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
    > > > > > I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month
    > > > > > ago against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the
    > > > > > regression being addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some
    > > > > > guys on IRC suggested I
    > > > > > email, so here it is.
    > > > >
    > > > > See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
    > > >
    > > > Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
    > > > that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
    > > > on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
    > > > netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?
    > >
    > > Why assume it's a different bug? I would almost wonder if it might affect
    > > all Sandy Bridge GPUs. In any case, I no longer have the original
    > > motherboard (it was recalled, as I said in the first post), nor even the
    > > revision of it (it had other issues that weren't being fixed). I *assume* I
    > > will have the same problem with my new motherboard (Intel DQ67SW), but I
    > > haven't verified that yet. I'll be sure to try a netconsole when I have to
    > > reboot next and get a chance to try the most recent 2.6.38 and .39 kernels,
    > > but at the moment it seems reasonable to address the problem bisected in the
    > > bug, even if it turns out to be different.
    >
    > The bisection is into an old DRI1 bug on 945GM. That DRI has inadequate
    > locking between release and IRQ and so is prone to such races as befell
    > Kirill should not surprise anyone. As neither UMS nor DRI supported SNB,
    > I can quite confidently state they are separate bugs.
    > -Chris

    I see DRI1 is maybe buggy and old, but still, pre-kms X used to work ok
    on kernels < 2.6.38, and starting from 2.6.38 the system is just
    unusable because X either crashes the kernel (2.6.38), or does not start
    at all (2.6.39):

    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36052


    It's a regression. It's blocking me to upgrade to newer kernels. I've
    done my homework -- digged it and came with detailed OOPS on netconsole
    and bisected to single commit. Could this please be fixed?


    Thanks,
    Kirill


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-28 15:43    [W:0.025 / U:0.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site