[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5026A6D1.8070403@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:39:13 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Takao Indoh <indou.takao@...fujitsu.com>, amwang@...hat.com,
dyoung@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, rjw@...k.pl,
yinghai.lu@...cle.com, tiwai@...e.de, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: revert "x86: Fix S4 regression"
On 08/11/2012 11:34 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 11:26 AM, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch from Jacob Shin solves the problem, and seems like it might
>>> be a better solution.
>>>
>>> [PATCH 2/5] x86: find_early_table_space based on memory ranges that
>>> are being mapped
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/9/540
>>>
>> Actually, apply that series of 5 patches.
>>
>
> I was hoping Tejun would comment on it, but I think I'll pull it into -tip.
>
> However, the real question is what we should do for -stable; applying
> the full patch series seems a big aggressive for that. On the other
> hand, if it really is The Right Thing then perhaps we should do so anyway.
>
Ah, right... still waiting for a rev of the patch to address Yinghai's
legitimate request for minor code restructuring. Other than that, the
patchset is really The Right Thing.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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