On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ben Guthro <b...@guthro.net> wrote: > > > > If people have experience with these in the "enterprise" distros, or any > > > other > > > tree, and want to provide me with backported, and tested, patches, I'll > > > be > > > glad to consider them for stable kernels. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > I tried to do a simple cherry-pick of the suggested patches - but they > > apply against files that don't exist in the 4.9 series. > > I think there are only two strategies to maintain a backport which work in > the > long run: > > - insist on the simplest fixes and pure cherry-picks > > - or pick up _everything_ to sync up the two versions. > > The latter would mean a lot of commits - and I'm afraid it would also involve > the > scheduler header split-up, which literally involves hundreds of files plus > perpetual build-breakage risk, so it's a no-no. > > > In my release of 4.9 - I'm planning on doing the simpler revert of > > 1b568f0aab > > that introduced the performance degradation, rather than pulling in lots of > > code > > from newer kernels. > > That sounds much saner - I'd even Ack that approach for -stable as a special > exception, than to complicate things with excessive backports.
Ok, I'll revert that for the next stable release after this one that is currently under review. thanks, greg k-h
