On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:06:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:51:34AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:10:00AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > Thanks for fixing this. In future you should send a patch like this as a > > > separate patch. I've not been paying attention to it because I assumed it > > > was > > > > Got it. However, here is the thing, in previous version, this fix > > depends on some of other patches in this patchset. So to make this fix > > applied cleanly, I reorder my patchset to put this patch first, and the > > result is that some of other patches in this patchset depends on > > this(they need to remove code modified by this patch). > > > > So I guess I'd better to stop Cc stable for this one, and wait until > > this patchset merged and send a separate patch for -stable tree. Does > > that work for you? I think this is what Peter want to suggests me to do > > when he asked me about this, right, Peter? > > I don't think I had explicit thoughts about any of that, just that it > might make sense to have this patch not depend on the rest such that it > could indeed be stuffed into stable. >
Got that. Sorry for misunderstanding you... > I'll leave the details up to Michael since he's PPC maintainer. Michael and Peter, rest of this patchset depends on commits which are currently in the locking/core branch of the tip, so I would like it as a whole queued there. Besides, I will keep this patch Cc'ed to stable in future versions, that works for you both? Regards, Boqun
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
