Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different > > > > patch for -stable than what we have upstream. > > > > > > It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. > > > > > > It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. > > > And as long as it's well tested, of course. > > > > I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... > > As far as I understand the issue the patch is indeed correct and I have > 3 independent people who confirm their previously reported issues are > now cured (as testified by the Tested-by tags). > > There has also been confirmation that upstream does no longer suffer the > problem. Now applied, thanks. greg k-h -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different patch for -stable than what we have upstream. It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. And as long as it's well tested, of course. I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... As far as I understand the issue the patch is indeed correct and I have 3 independent people who confirm their previously reported issues are now cured (as testified by the Tested-by tags). There has also been confirmation that upstream does no longer suffer the problem. Now applied, thanks. greg k-h -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different > > > > patch for -stable than what we have upstream. > > > > > > It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. > > > > > > It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. > > > And as long as it's well tested, of course. > > > > I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... > > As far as I understand the issue the patch is indeed correct and I have > 3 independent people who confirm their previously reported issues are > now cured (as testified by the Tested-by tags). > > There has also been confirmation that upstream does no longer suffer the > problem. Thanks for that, I'll queue it up in a bit. greg k-h -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different > > > patch for -stable than what we have upstream. > > > > It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. > > > > It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. > > And as long as it's well tested, of course. > > I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... As far as I understand the issue the patch is indeed correct and I have 3 independent people who confirm their previously reported issues are now cured (as testified by the Tested-by tags). There has also been confirmation that upstream does no longer suffer the problem. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different > > patch for -stable than what we have upstream. > > It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. > > It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. > And as long as it's well tested, of course. I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different > patch for -stable than what we have upstream. It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. And as long as it's well tested, of course. Linus -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different patch for -stable than what we have upstream. It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. And as long as it's well tested, of course. Linus -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different patch for -stable than what we have upstream. It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. And as long as it's well tested, of course. I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different patch for -stable than what we have upstream. It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. And as long as it's well tested, of course. I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... As far as I understand the issue the patch is indeed correct and I have 3 independent people who confirm their previously reported issues are now cured (as testified by the Tested-by tags). There has also been confirmation that upstream does no longer suffer the problem. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different patch for -stable than what we have upstream. It's not all that common, but it certainly happens. It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream. And as long as it's well tested, of course. I agree, I can take this as long as you say it's correct and tested... As far as I understand the issue the patch is indeed correct and I have 3 independent people who confirm their previously reported issues are now cured (as testified by the Tested-by tags). There has also been confirmation that upstream does no longer suffer the problem. Thanks for that, I'll queue it up in a bit. greg k-h -- 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/
