Re: [stable] Re: [PATCH 07/11] the latest consensus libata resume fix

* Jens Axboe ([email protected]) wrote:
> I'm not against the patch as such, but last I checked 2.6.16 actually
> worked ok. The timer fixes in 2.6.17-rc is what apparently got the
> resume breaking.
> 
> So unless there's a bug report on 2.6.16.x for this, then it's a little
> against the -stable rules to add it.

We did get a report that this fix was needed, but I'm not 100% which
kernel base the report was against.  Marcel, were you testing on a 2.6.16
base, or 2.6.17-rc?

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 00/11] -stable review
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 07/11] the latest consensus libata resume fix
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 07/11] the latest consensus libata resume fix
    • From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: d_entry delete ( d_delete ) in d_cache.c on linux 2.6.15 and beyond
• Next by Date: How does remote NFS open keep local SB in memory after umount?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 07/11] the latest consensus libata resume fix
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 07/11] the latest consensus libata resume fix
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]