| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:59:25 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.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 On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 03:44:21PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. > Why 3.12 if it is not going to stable? -- Gleb. -- 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