[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160520154111.GA18575@test-lenovo>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:41:12 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/fpu/state: Fix XSAVES issues - Part 1
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:12:00AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Hm, the series does not apply cleanly:
>
> patching file arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/xstate.h
> patching file arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> patching file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/init.c
> patching file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c
> patching file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 552.
> 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
>
> which suggests that this series isn't against a recent x86 tree, right?
That was based on the latest upstream kernel. I also keep a version based
on tip/master. Would it work?
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists