From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 04:31:48 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6587124C for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3198CDC8 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id tr6so988109ieb.2 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:31:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4QreW5u4xnWfPri/ArITQaH2R3uYRbQQGui5EgTZCdA=; b=xHYO8izAd0hifAG4wMIJYiAgmzu+VlCFQaAbiGm7uZmAqg0vTdnp9vIpQTAgoB5okj 1rsEhYf9WFefYB3tXjUBrd/aBhuNP9oh10qIsdT3/X09i/PweSmrYMgR1W4gTpmeD14U NOgE2zrtcYH1rNPDvOLiDrKffzDKdh3LJDpYBt+vE4Vv9SZvBJkVN5SBV2ZCJFBs2vDI HxKKT5R7+AgHlQO6UQUrHRKDBVF+kYz12CLWHF+3qbAClw/g0ZJW+l4kQ1pizOrVAVXM JU1iNore/CtEc60eCj7XWaNpp/hsERhH9XeR2jk3EwmTKlSDQEglZ1ePR65HbuYyDjg8 DuwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.164.16 with SMTP id n16mr30835575ioe.44.1421641907526; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:31:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.52.19 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:31:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150118232836.GA1494@workbox.Home> References: <20141226165731.GA28169@workbox.Home> <20150118232836.GA1494@workbox.Home> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:31:47 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: E06YOPK5qVH3nCW7lofO4U_ffdg Message-ID: Subject: Re: Lenovo T520: Present (-STABLE) vs. Future (-CURRENT) ACPI Support From: Kevin Oberman To: Bigby James Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:31:48 -0000 On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Bigby James wrote: > So as part of setting up a Poudriere build server I decided to run a > buildworld > on my machines and, as per John Baldwin's request, I merged r270516 from > HEAD > with r277351 from STABLE. I can confirm Kevin Oberman's findings---things > are > working fine so far. I got to learn a thing or two about FreeBSD > development > and some of the basics of using Subversion. Thanks a lot for the pointers, > folks. So what are the chances of getting this merged into STABLE so > myself and > others don't have to MFC every update? > First, if you use subversion, you won't need to merge the patches every update. As long as those files are not updated, there is no action required. If any of them are, you will be notified of the conflict during the update and you can then resolve it. As intel_opregion.c is pretty stable, I hope it will be MFCed before any other MFCs happen. 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. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com