On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:53:20AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:34:24AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:27:40AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov
wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:59:33AM +0300, Konstantin
Belousov wrote:
> > > > > Below is, I believe, the committable fix, of course
supposing that
> > > > > the patch above worked. If you want to retest it on
stable/11, ignore
> > > > > efirt.c chunks.
> > > >
> > > > and remove patch w/ spinlock?
> > > Yes.
> >
> > What you prefer now -- I am test spinlock patch or this patch?
> > For success in any case need wait 2-3 days.
>
> If you already run previous (spinlock) version for 1 day, then finish
> with it. I am confident that spinlock version results are indicative for
> the refined patch as well.
>
> If you did not applied the spinlock variant at all, there is no reason to
> spend efforts on it, use the patch I sent today.
No, I am did not applied the spinlock variant at all.
OK, try this patch.
Do you still need first 100 lines from verbose boot?