From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 20 17:32:48 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5728C619 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sender1.zohomail.com (sender1.zohomail.com [74.201.84.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40F15F55 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:32:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from workbox.Home (184-100-124-78.mpls.qwest.net [184.100.124.78]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1421775163719700.3043200711999; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:32:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:32:41 -0600 From: Bigby James To: Kevin Oberman Subject: Re: Lenovo T520: Present (-STABLE) vs. Future (-CURRENT) ACPI Support Message-ID: <20150120173241.GA26304@workbox.Home> References: <20141226165731.GA28169@workbox.Home> <20150118232836.GA1494@workbox.Home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 2 Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:32:48 -0000 On 01/18, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > I will also mention that I did update my system today and the kernel build > failed if I did a parallel build (-jN). The failure was in the "depend" > stage, so it failed rather quickly. I did two builds with -j6 and two > without. Both builds with -j6 failed and both without it succeeded. So > something is not quite right and, since I have seen no other reports and it > fails while in drm2/i915, it seems very likely it is related to the patch. > Of course, it is possible that I messed up the merge, but it seems unlikely > that a bad merge would cause this failure. This would indicate a race, > possibly triggered by the changes. It could also be hardware dependent. > Races can be a real challenge to track down. Huh. I just built both my custom kernel and the GENERIC configuration, using both '-j8' (my usual setting) and '-j6.' Both completed successfully. You and I were likely building from the same commit as well (I wrote my message to the list immediately after updating), so that's odd. -- "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams