[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55A0639B-3C54-456D-95C1-829332C024EE@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:41:02 +0000
From: Sridhar Pitchai <Sridhar.Pitchai@...rosoft.com>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jake Oshins <jakeo@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]PCI: hv: fix PCI-BUS domainID corruption
Please read the link I sent you in relation to email formatting.
Then add your description above in a way that anyone not 100% familiar
with hyperv can understand it - that's what the commit log is for.
You are sending this patch to stable kernels, patch above has been in
the kernel from v4.14. The patch you are fixing since v4.11, you ought
to be careful since you do not want to have broken kernel versions owing
to stable patches mismatches, that's why I asked and I will ask again,
are you sure you won't trigger a regression by sending this fix to
stable ?
I assume the bond driver mechanism is now done and dusted.
That is correct. I have sent a v4 version of the patch. I am sending this
patch for stable kernel. We have tested and I am sure this should not trigger
regression by sending this fix to stable.
Thanks
Sridhar Pitchai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists