[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140513235659.GC29623@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:56:59 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>,
Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
Michele Ballabio <barra_cuda@...amail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different
> > > > patch for -stable than what we have upstream.
> > >
> > > It's not all that common, but it certainly happens.
> > >
> > > It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream.
> > > And as long as it's well tested, of course.
> >
> > I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested...
>
> As far as I understand the issue the patch is indeed correct and I have
> 3 independent people who confirm their previously reported issues are
> now cured (as testified by the Tested-by tags).
>
> There has also been confirmation that upstream does no longer suffer the
> problem.
Now applied, thanks.
greg k-h
--
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