[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#991967: #991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?



On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> 
> On 9/20/21 7:39 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >> Merely having the path is a sufficiently strong indicator for me to
> >> simply wave it past.  I though would suggest Debian should instead
> >> cherry-pick commit 0f089bbf43ecce6f27576cb548ba4341d0ec46a8.
> >>
> >> This is available as a patch at:
> >>
> >> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=patch;h=0f089bbf43ecce6f27576cb548ba4341d0ec46a8
> > You probably then also want the following commit, which is a fix on that patch:
> > https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commit;h=bc141e8ca56200bdd0a12e04a6ebff3c19d6c27b
> >
> > Found that via the following url/query:
> > https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=x86%2FACPI
> >
> > I don't know whether others should be used from that as well.
> 
> I tried these two commits (adapted for the xen-4.14 branch) but this
> approach did not fix the bug - with these patches applied the dom0
> did not power down.
> 
> My advice for the Debian Xen Team is to consult with upstream and
> get their advice on whether or not it is advisable for Debian to
> retain the patches from the Xen-4.16 branch that have been
> added to the Debian 4.14 package in an attempt to support
> some arm devices that panic during on an unpatched Xen-4.14.
> If upstream cannot help Debian backport fixes for arm panics
> from Xen-4.16/unstable to Xen-4.14 stable, I think the Debian
> Xen team should remove aggressive patches that really have now
> turned the Debian Xen-4.14 package into a Frankenstein version
> that is a mixture of Xen-4.14 and Xen-4.16, and decide that support
> for those arm devices must wait until Debian gets Xen 4.16 up
> and running on the unstable and hopefully soon, testing distribution.

It is still not established you're running into #991967.  Unless the one
you're pointing towards was backported to the Xen 4.11 packages (which I
doubt) it cannot explain #991967, since at the time 4.11 was in use.

Could be this is a second bug with symptoms similar to #991967.  Now
that a fix for the second bug has been identified, you might try a
4.19.181-1 kernel and see whether that fixes things.


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         ehem+sigmsg@m5p.com  PGP 87145445         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445


Reply to: