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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:26:52 -0800 From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@...il.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@...il.com> CC: dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] intel_pstate updates for v3.14-rcX On 02/18/2014 04:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:35:26 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >> On 02/18/2014 04:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:24:02 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:53:48 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >>>>>> On 02/18/2014 02:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:29:54 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Rafael, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 02/12/2014 10:01 AM, dirk.brandewie@...il.com <javascript:;>wrote: >>>>>>>>> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Based on v3.14-rc2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Patch 1 removes energy reporting the patch from Maurizio Lambardi >>>>>>>>> intel_pstate: fix race condition in intel_pstate_init() can be >>>>> dropped. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any reason why patches 2-5 did not make rc3 other than timing? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Patches 2/3 can easily wait for v3.15.x >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Patches 4/5 fix bugs that are in the wild. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I asked you about them, but you didn't reply: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139225158531023&w=4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, do patches [4-5/5] depend on [2-3/5]? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not, I can queue them up for -rc4. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the patches are independent of one another. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patch 2 is straight cleanup no functional change but reduces the memory >>>>>> footprint slightly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patch 3 is a bug that will only be seen when the PID is reset at init >>>>> time >>>>>> or when a change is made to PID params via debugfs. The problem will >>>>> only >>>>>> exist for one sample time since it is setting last_err in the PID. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patch 4-5 are bugs found during Baytrail-T testing >>>>> >>>>> Are there any pointers to bug reports that may be included in the >>>>> changelogs >>>>> of these? >>>> >>>> >>>> No. I got the reports via email. I could probably get the reporters to >>>> file bugzillas. >>> >>> It would be good to add information about what machines are affected >>> and what the user-visible problems are to the changelogs for future >>> reference. >>> >>> And do we want these two patches in -stable? If so, what -stable series should >>> they go into? >> >> Patch 2 v3.10+ >> >> Patch 3 v3.12+ > > You said [2-3/5] were cleanups, so why do you think they are -stable material? I misspoke these are not stable material > >> Patch 4/5 v3.13+ > > OK > > What about the bug information? Can you please point me to the e-mail threads > where the bugs were discussed at least? > > Rafael > -- 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