[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b387a269-642f-4944-e08e-c74e00372240@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:58:40 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KVM patches applied in weird order in -stable
On 13/09/2016 18:57, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> > >> [0] commit 4e422bdd2f84 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [1] commit 172b2386ed16 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [2] commit 70e4da7a8ff6 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> but this is the order for linux-4.4.y
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> [1] commit fc90441e728a ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [2] commit 25e8618619a5 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [0] commit 0f6e5e26e68f ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> The upshot is that KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD is always set when returning
>>>> > >> from kvm_arch_vcpu_load() in stable, but not in Linus' tree.
>>> > >
>>> > > How would applying these in a different order cause breakage?
>> >
>> > [2] is reverting [0]+[1]. Stable is not due to the different order.
> Really? Are you sure that [0] and [1] isn't just the same commit? It
> looks like that to me.
It is; "git" automatically resolved the conflicts when merging [1], and
then [2] reverted the change. In stable, changing the order created a
different conflict resolution.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists