[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5064C99E.9050801@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:14 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: stable@...r.kernel.org, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] 3.2-stable timekeeping fixes merged in 3.6
On 09/27/2012 01:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:35:23PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
>> Just wanted to send out a few timekeeping fixes that were merged
>> in 3.6 which are appropriate for -stable.
>>
>> This queue backports the following fixes:
>> -----------------------------------------
>> cee58483cf56e0ba355fdd97ff5e8925329aa936 time: Move ktime_t overflow checking into timespec_valid_strict
>> bf2ac312195155511a0f79325515cbb61929898a time: Avoid making adjustments if we haven't accumulated anything
>> 4e8b14526ca7fb046a81c94002c1c43b6fdf0e9b time: Improve sanity checking of timekeeping inputs
>>
>> I've run these through my timetest suite w/ kvm on both i386
>> & x86_64. But more testing would be of course appreciated.
>> https://github.com/johnstultz-work/timetests
>>
>> I also have patch queues for all the -stable trees that I'll be
>> sending out as my testing completes for those trees.
> Did you also send these out for the 3.0.y tree and I just missed them?
> Should I just take this 3.2.y series and see how they well apply?
I did send them out for 3.0, on Sep 11.
Let me know if you can't find them and I'll resend.
thanks
-john
--
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