[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140812053158.GJ4184@grmbl.mre>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:01:58 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, Amos Kong <akong@...hat.com>,
Virtualization List <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [3.16 stable PATCH 1/1] virtio-rng: fix multi-device startup
On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [06:55:27], Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:11:47PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > This is a 3.16-only patch. The linux.git fix is
> > 5c06273401f2eb7b290cadbae18ee00f8f65e893, which fixes this issue in a
> > different way.
>
> Why "different"? Why can't I take that original patch instead? What is
> different in this patch, and why?
The commit referenced moves the hwrng_register() call to the ->scan()
callback instead of it being in probe(). This was done to ensure the
virtio-rng devices can contribute to the initial system entropy
introduced in commit d9e7972619334.
That patch is quite small too, but will need a slight conflict
resolution due to the previous two code-shuffling patches, and also
the following revert.
However, I decided against the backport of the ->scan() method, since
it wasn't designed to solve this regression, it happens to solve it,
and it actually introduces new functionality. I would be happy to
provide a backport of the relevant patches, if you think that would be
alright.
Thanks,
Amit
--
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