linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.0 077/105] drm/i915: Dont skip request retirement if the active list is empty

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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:48:39 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Ville Syrjälä 
	<ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.0 077/105] drm/i915: Dont skip request retirement if
 the active list is empty

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:34:37AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29:13AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> > 4.0-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >> 
> >> The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just
> >> got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to
> >> *not* backport either of these:
> >> 
> >> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5
> >> Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Date:   Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300
> >> 
> >>     drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty
> >> 
> >> commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c
> >> Author: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
> >> Date:   Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300
> >> 
> >>     Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty"
> >> 
> >> I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too.
> >
> > This patch is now in 4.0 so what do I suggest I do?  Just take these as
> > well?
> >
> > confused,
> 
> Sorry for confusing you. Please take neither or take both.

So, based on what I have queued up, and what is already released in
4.0-stable, we should be fine, right?
--
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/