On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:31:29PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:08:46PM -0800, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:04:13PM +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > On 13.02.2013 11:33, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:16:56PM +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > > > On 13.02.2013 09:28, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > > > > > > On 12.02.2013 21:42, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > There was a further set of patches queued for 3.9 to deal with > > > > > > > connected > > > > > > > devices going to the Inactive state, but they looked like they > > > > > > > were too > > > > > > > big for stable: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d3b9d7a USB: Fix connected device switch to Inactive state. > > > > > > > a24a607 USB: Rip out recursive call on warm port reset. > > > > > > > 2d4fa94 USB: Prepare for refactoring by adding extra udev checks. > > > > > > > 0fe51aa USB: Don't use EHCI port sempahore for USB 3.0 hubs. > > > > > > > > Holger and Matthias, can you double check that cherry picking just those > > > > four patches on top of 3.7.7 or 3.8 works as well? > > > > > > 3.7.7 + those 4 patches workes for me. > > > > > > As i'm not very firm in git i generated separate diffs for each commit > > > and applying them in the order 2d4fa94 0fe51aa d3b9d7a a24a607 worked > > > without hunks dropped. > > > > > > I have attached `git diff` against vanilla 3.7.7, so you can check that > > > i got it right. > > > > Yep, that diff looks fine compared to the git diff of those four patches. > > > > Greg, > > > > How do you want to handle this? The above four patches should go into > > 3.8 and stable, but they're not currently in Linus' tree and it's > > probably too late in the cycle to merge them this week. Should we just > > wait until 3.9 is out and put the patches into the stable trees then? > > > My email shows that the bad commit > > f7965c0846d74b270e246c1470ca955d5078eb07 has been added to the 3.2, 3.4, > > and 3.7 stable trees, as well as Canonical's 3.7 stable tree. I'm also > > fine with just reverting that commit from 3.8 and stable. > > It's probably easier at this point in time to just revert that commit, > leave the stable kernels alone, and then everything will be fixed in > 3.9. When the commits go into Linus's tree, we can backport everything > to the stable releases (including 3.8.1) at that point. > > As long as someone remembers to send the needed information to > sta...@vger.kernel.org, I know I'll forget :) > > Sound ok?
Yep, sounds fine. I'll attempt to remember to send email to stable once 3.9 is out. Sarah Sharp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
