Re: 3.10.1 cpufreq suspend/resume regression still present in 3.10.2

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 07/22/2013 08:46 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> linux-3.10.1 introduced a regression in cpufreq breaking suspend/resume
> cycle for some people [1].
> 
> There were also some other threads about it in lkml.
> 
> I see 3.10.2-stable was released some days ago. I couldnât see anything
> about fixing this regression reported in the changelog.
> 
> And to be 110% certain, I compiled it and tried suspending/resuming;
> itâs still broken.
> 
> Is this going to be fixed in 3.10 stable branch?
> 

The patches that fix that regression went into mainline just a few days
ago as these commits: 

commit aae760ed21cd690fe8a6db9f3a177ad55d7e12ab
Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Fri Jul 12 03:45:37 2013 +0530

    cpufreq: Revert commit a66b2e to fix suspend/resume regression


commit e8d05276f236ee6435e78411f62be9714e0b9377
Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Tue Jul 16 22:46:48 2013 +0200

    cpufreq: Revert commit 2f7021a8 to fix CPU hotplug regression


And both of them have been CC'ed to -stable. So they should be hitting
the stable tree soon.

Hmm, that reminds me.. whenever a patch cc'ed to stable hit the mainline,
the patch signers used to receive an automatic email from Greg. I didn't
get that for the above two patches.. Did the process change due to the
recent discussions around -stable tree maintenance?


Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/