linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Make kvm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <524045B5.5020308@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:44:21 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
CC:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@...mens.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Make kvm_lock non-raw

Il 23/09/2013 15:36, Paul Gortmaker ha scritto:
>> > The change is not completely trivial, it splits lock. There is no
>> > obvious problem of course, otherwise you wouldn't send it and I
>> > would ack it :), but it does not mean that the chance for problem is
>> > zero, so why risk stability of stable even a little bit if the patch
>> > does not fix anything in stable?
>> > 
>> > I do not know how -rt development goes and how it affects decisions for
>> > stable acceptance, why can't they carry the patch in their tree until
>> > they move to 3.12?
> The -rt tree regularly carries mainline backports that are of interest
> to -rt but perhaps not of interest to stable, so there is no problem
> doing the same with content like this, if desired.

Perfect, I'll queue [v2 of] these patches for 3.12 then.

Paolo
--
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/