[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8qRTwEnEJz0L4mm@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:04:15 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
stable-rt <stable-rt@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...e.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
Jeff Brady <jeffreyjbrady@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 5.10.162-rt78
On 2023-01-20 09:51:07 [-0300], Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> My question is: do you prefer renumbering the bits or the neat asm hack
> that Mike proposed?
That change, that was stable-backported, should have hit the devel tree
first. Why not sync with that?
> Luis
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists