[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110420031105.GA11945@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:11:05 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, stable-review@...nel.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [12/28] x86, cpu: Clean up AMD erratum 400
workaround
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:17:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 19:01 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 02:40:53AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:30 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > From: Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com>
> > > >
> > > > commit 9d8888c2a214aece2494a49e699a097c2ba9498b upstream.
> > > >
> > > > Remove check_c1e_idle() and use the new AMD errata checking framework
> > > > instead.
> > >
> > > Clean-up patches are generally not candidates for longterm updates.
> >
> > This was added because a follow-on patch required it.
>
> Ah yes, 'x86, AMD: Set ARAT feature on AMD processors' is using the same
> condition.
>
> Of course, that could have been backported by referring to the function
> that this removes, rather than pulling in a load of other changes with
> consequent risk of regressions.
I prefer to take original patches for stable, it makes it easier in the
end.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists