On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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
Greg, Just for clarity - is the "next one" 4.9.38 (posted today for review) - or the one following? Thanks, Ben
