[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160520174120.GB9970@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 19:41:20 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
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
* Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> 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?
Yes, tip/master would be fine, or upstream bc231d9ede99 that has the x86 tree
already merged.
Thanks,
Ingo.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists