Re: [PATCH] hw_random: free rng_buffer at module exit

At Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:10:29 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Ben Hutchings writes: > > On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 15:35 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> Satoru Takeuchi writes: > >> > At Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:11:21 +1030, > >> > Rusty Russell wr

Re: [ 00/89] 3.7.6-stable review

At Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:07:15 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.7.6 release. > There are 89 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/33] 3.4.29-stable review

At Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:49:05 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.29 release. > There are 33 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 000/128] 3.2.38-stable review

At Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:46:44 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.2.38 release. > There are 128 patches in this series, which will be posted as responses > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. > >

Re: [ 00/34] 3.7.7-stable review

At Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:56:56 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.7.7 release. > There are 34 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/16] 3.0.63-stable review

At Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:59 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.63 release. > There are 16 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/26] 3.4.30-stable review

At Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:28 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.30 release. > There are 26 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/15] 3.0.61-stable review

At Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:18:24 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.61 release. > There are 15 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/22] 3.4.28-stable review

At Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:15:21 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.28 release. > There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/46] 3.7.5-stable review

At Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:12:38 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.7.5 release. > There are 46 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Mark disable_runtime as __initdata

(2013/02/23 0:03), Matt Fleming wrote: > From: Matt Fleming > > disable_runtime is only referenced from __init functions, so mark it > as __initdata. > > Reported-by: Yinghai Lu > Cc: Satoru Takeuchi > Cc: H. Peter Anvin > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming It loo

Re: [ 000/150] 3.8.1-stable review

At Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:50:03 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.8.1 release. > > There are 150 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > to this one. If anyone has

Re: [ 00/86] 3.4.34-stable review

At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:07:08 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.34 release. > There are 86 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/53] 3.0.67-stable review

At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:57:29 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.67 release. > There are 53 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 000/150] 3.8.1-stable review

At Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:24:20 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:51:32PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > At Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:50:03 -0700, > > Shuah Khan wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >

Re: [ 00/66] 3.2.39-stable review

At Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:50:01 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.2.39 release. > There are 66 patches in this series, which will be posted as responses > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. > > R

Re: [ 1/1] printk: fix buffer overflow when calling log_prefix function from call_console_drivers

Hi Alexandre, At Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:24:56 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > -- > > From: Alexandre SIMON > > This patch corrects a buffer overflow in kernels from 3.0 to 3.4 when calling > log_

Re: [ 0/1] 3.4.33-stable review

At Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:31:02 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:50:16PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> wrote: > >> > This is the start of the stable revi

Re: [ 0/1] 3.0.66-stable review

At Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:49:17 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.66 release. > > There is 1 patch in this series, which will be posted as a response to > > this one. If anyone has

Re: [ 1/1] printk: fix buffer overflow when calling log_prefix function from call_console_drivers

At Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:43:09 +0100, Alexandre SIMON wrote: > > [Satoru Takeuchi] wrote the following on [20/02/2013 14:02]: > [...] > > > > I reviewed this patch and it seems to be good for me. Since I'm not good at > > printk code, I want to confirm whethe

Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Make "noefi" really disable EFI runtime serivces

parse_early_param(). > > This resulted in "noefi" effectively becoming a no-op and no longer > providing users with a way to disable EFI, which is bad for those > users that have buggy machines. Sorry, my patch was imperfect. This patch looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Sato

Re: [ 12/40] hw_random: make buffer usable in scatterlist.

Hi Rusty, At Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:43:33 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > -- > > From: Rusty Russell > > commit f7f154f1246ccc5a0a7e9ce50932627d60a0c878 upstream. > > virtio_rng feeds the random

[PATCH] hw_random: free rng_buffer at module exit

At Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:11:21 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Satoru Takeuchi writes: > > Hi Rusty, > > > > At Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:43:33 -0700, > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> @@ -307,6 +312,14 @@ int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rn

Re: [ 00/40] 3.4.36-stable review

At Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:43:21 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.36 release. > There are 40 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

At Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:01:17 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been marked for > the stable releases right now that are not included in this set of > releases. The fact that there are this many patches for stable stuff > that are

Re: [ 00/15] 3.9.10-stable review

At Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:19:30 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.9.10 release. > There are 15 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/11] 3.4.53-stable review

At Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:11:00 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.53 release. > There are 11 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 0/8] 3.0.86-stable review

At Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:20:29 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.86 release. > There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/54] 3.6.9-stable review

At Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:55:31 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.6.9 release. > There are 54 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/56] 3.4.21-stable review

At Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:54:52 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.21 release. > There are 56 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/37] 3.0.54-stable review

At Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:45:47 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.54 release. > There are 37 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/37] 3.0.54-stable review

Dave, Shuah, At Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:15:21 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM, David Miller wrote: > > > > Satoru, I just want to let you know that, because you encode your > > emails using ISO-2022-JP-2, nearly half of the subscribers to > > the vger.kernel.org mailing li

Re: [ 00/11] 3.0.56-stable review

Hi Greg, 2012/12/7 Greg Kroah-Hartman : > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.56 release. > There are 11 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. This kernel can be built

Re: [ 00/20] 3.4.23-stable review

Hi Greg, 2012/12/7 Greg Kroah-Hartman : > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.23 release. > There are 20 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. > > Responses should be ma

Re: [ 00/27] 3.6.10-stable review

Hi Greg, 2012/12/7 Greg Kroah-Hartman : > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.6.10 release. > There are 27 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. This kernel can be built

Re: [ 032/173] cgroup: cgroup_subsys->fork() should be called after the task is added to css_set

be migrated during cgroup_subsys->fork(), freezer_fork() is updated so that it adheres to the usual RCU locking and the rather pointless comment on why locking can be different there is removed (if it doesn't make anything simpler, why even bother?). Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo Cc: Oleg Nesterov

Re: [ 032/173] cgroup: cgroup_subsys->fork() should be called after the task is added to css_set

At Tue, 01 Jan 2013 14:20:56 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: ... > > At Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:04:02 +0100, > > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me > > > know. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From: Tejun Heo > > > > > > co

Re: [ 29/48] mm: migration: add migrate_entry_wait_huge()

Hi Naoya, At Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:17:55 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > 3.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > -- > > From: Naoya Horiguchi > > commit 30dad30922ccc733cfdbfe232090cf674dc374dc upstream.

Re: [ 00/48] 3.9.7-stable review

At Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:17:26 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.9.7 release. > There are 48 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being app

Re: [ 0/7] 3.0.83-stable review

At Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:10:37 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.83 release. > There are 7 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being app

Re: [ 00/26] 3.4.50-stable review

At Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:14:40 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.50 release. > There are 26 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being ap

Re: [ 29/48] mm: migration: add migrate_entry_wait_huge()

At Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:02:13 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:52:43PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > Hi Naoya, > > > > At Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:17:55 -0700, > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > From: Greg Kro

Re: [ 29/48] mm: migration: add migrate_entry_wait_huge()

At Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:47:27 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 20-06-13 18:52:43, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > Hi Naoya, > > > > At Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:17:55 -0700, > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > >

Re: [ 29/48] mm: migration: add migrate_entry_wait_huge()

> > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > > > > > 3.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me > > > > know. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > From: Naoya Horiguchi > > > > > > > > commit 30dad30922ccc733cfdbfe232090cf674dc374dc upstream. > > > > > >

Re: [ 000/104] 3.2.42-stable review

At Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:34:24 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.2.42 release. > There are 104 patches in this series, which will be posted as responses > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. > >

Re: [ 00/38] 3.9.11-stable review

At Thu, 18 Jul 2013 22:21:16 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > --- > Note, this is the LAST 3.9-stable kernel release that I will be doing. > Please move to the 3.10-stable branch as soon as possible. > --- > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.9.11

Re: [ 00/24] 3.4.54-stable review

At Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:24:32 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.54 release. > There are 24 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/18] 3.0.87-stable review

At Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:23:15 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.87 release. > There are 18 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/72] 3.10.2-stable review

At Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:40:24 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 09:27:46AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > > On 2013-07-19 07:25 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.10.2 release. > > > There are 72 patches in thi

Re: [ 00/30] 3.0.68-stable review

At Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:45:21 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.68 release. > There are 30 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/46] 3.4.35-stable review

At Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:44:48 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.35 release. > There are 46 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/77] 3.8.2-stable review

At Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:43:45 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.8.2 release. > There are 77 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 000/153] 3.2.40-stable review

I reviewed the following patches and it looks good to me. > Matt Fleming (1): > x86, efi: Make "noefi" really disable EFI runtime serivces > [fb834c7acc5e140cf4f9e86da93a66de8c0514da] ... > Satoru Takeuchi (1): > efi: Clear EFI_RUNTIME_

Re: [ 00/12] 3.0.78-stable review

At Thu, 9 May 2013 15:37:13 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.78 release. > There are 12 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/26] 3.4.45-stable review

At Thu, 9 May 2013 15:34:14 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.45 release. > There are 26 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/73] 3.9.2-stable review

At Thu, 9 May 2013 15:24:50 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.9.2 release. > There are 73 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/73] 3.8.13-stable review

At Thu, 9 May 2013 15:31:23 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > NOTE: This is the LAST 3.8.y kernel release to be done by me. After > this one, it is end-of-life. You should have moved on to the 3.9.y > kernel series by now. > > > This is the start

Re: [000/118] 3.2.45-rc1 review

At Fri, 10 May 2013 14:39:39 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.2.45 release. > There are 118 patches in this series, which will be posted as responses > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. > >

Re: [ 00/23] 3.0.75-stable review

At Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:56:07 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.75 release. > There are 23 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/26] 3.4.42-stable review

At Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:53:40 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.42 release. > There are 26 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/42] 3.8.9-stable review

At Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:51:58 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.8.9 release. > There are 42 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/33] 3.0.79-stable review

At Fri, 17 May 2013 14:49:44 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.79 release. > There are 33 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/50] 3.4.46-stable review

At Fri, 17 May 2013 14:46:35 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.46 release. > There are 50 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 027/102] x86, vm86: fix VM86 syscalls: use SYSCALL_DEFINEx(...)

At Fri, 17 May 2013 16:51:33 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:49:30PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:35:42PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > 3.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me > > > know. > > > > This

Re: [ 000/102] 3.9.3-stable review

At Fri, 17 May 2013 14:35:15 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.9.3 release. > There are 102 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 027/102] x86, vm86: fix VM86 syscalls: use SYSCALL_DEFINEx(...)

r was saying something was off here. > > > > Can someone send me just the needed patch to get this working properly, > > and I will be glad to drop this one from the 3.9.x tree. > > I've now dropped this, and will release without it. Here is the backported patch. It ca

Re: [ 21/21] x86, vm86: fix VM86 syscalls: use SYSCALL_DEFINEx(...)

automatically now] The Patch itself is OK. But the above one line is not correct and should be removed. This backport patch calls asmlinkage_protect() since 3.9 doesn't automatically call it. It's why the original upstream patch is dropped from 3.9.3. Thanks, Satoru > > Backported-b

Re: [ 00/21] 3.9.4-stable review

At Wed, 22 May 2013 15:10:18 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.9.4 release. > There are 21 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 0/5] 3.4.47-stable review

At Wed, 22 May 2013 15:18:06 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.47 release. > There are 5 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 0/3] 3.0.80-stable review

At Wed, 22 May 2013 15:19:42 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.80 release. > There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/98] 3.8.5-stable review

At Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:41:49 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.8.5 release. > There are 98 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/72] 3.4.38-stable review

At Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:50:43 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.38 release. > There are 72 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/49] 3.0.71-stable review

At Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:00:57 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.71 release. > There are 49 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

[PATCH] Fix typos on lib/Kconfig

Fix typos on lib/Kconfig. Signed-off-by: Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Index: 2.6.25-rc2/lib/Kconfig === --- 2.6.25-rc2.orig/lib/Kconfig 2008-02-22 15:11:56.0 +0900 +++ 2.6.25-rc2/lib/Kconfig 2008-02-22

Re: [ 00/16] 3.0.60-stable review

At Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:21:38 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.60 release. > There are 16 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. T

Re: [ 00/21] 3.4.27-stable review

At Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:19:18 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.27 release. > There are 21 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. T

Re: [ 00/33] 3.7.4-stable review

At Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:16:25 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.7.4 release. > There are 33 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. Th

Re: [ 00/61] 3.7.8-stable review

At Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:34:20 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.7.8 release. > There are 61 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/22] 3.0.64-stable review

At Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:36:43 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.64 release. > There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/36] 3.4.31-stable review

At Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:40:54 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.31 release. > There are 36 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

[PATCH] efi: Clear EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES rather than EFI_BOOT by "noefi" boot parameter

From: Satoru Takeuchi There was a serious problem in samsung-laptop that its platform driver is designed to run under BIOS and running under EFI can cause the machine to become bricked or can cause Machine Check Exceptions. Discussion about this problem: https://bugs.launchpad.net

Re: [ 11/83] module: fix out-by-one error in kallsyms

Hi, 2012/11/22 Greg Kroah-Hartman : > 3.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > -- > > From: Rusty Russell > > commit 59ef28b1f14899b10d6b2682c7057ca00a9a3f47 upstream. > > Masaki found and patched a kallsyms issue: the last symbol in a > modu

Re: [ 000/123] 3.7.2-stable review

At Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:33:59 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Note, there are still a lot of patches submitted for inclusion in the > stable releases that I have not gotten to yet. I wanted to get this > release out now, instead of delaying for a week or so while I dig > through all of the pe

Re: [ 00/80] 3.4.25-stable review

At Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:34:52 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Note, there are still a lot of patches submitted for inclusion in the > stable releases that I have not gotten to yet. I wanted to get this > release out now, instead of delaying for a week or so while I dig > through all of the pe

Re: [ 00/47] 3.0.58-stable review

At Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:34:55 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Note, there are still a lot of patches submitted for inclusion in the > stable releases that I have not gotten to yet. I wanted to get this > release out now, instead of delaying for a week or so while I dig > through all of the pe

Re: [ 00/28] 3.4.24-stable review

At Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:26:17 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.4.24 release. > There are 28 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/37] 3.6.11-stable review

At Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:00:37 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Note: This is going to be the last 3.6.y kernel release, unless > something major comes up, everyone should be moving to the 3.7.y kernel > at this point in time. > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.6.11 rele

Re: [ 00/27] 3.7.1-stable review

At Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:01:13 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.7.1 release. > There are 27 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

Re: [ 00/22] 3.0.57-stable review

At Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:25:45 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.0.57 release. > There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. >

[PATCH] remove unused rq->load_balance_class

Remove unused rq->load_balance_class. Signed-off-by: Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc1/kernel/sched.c === --- linux-2.6.23-rc1.orig/kernel/sched.c2007-07-26 17:12:21.0 +0900

[PATCH] Fix kobject documentation

Fix kobject documentation as follows. - remove trailing spaces. - struct device_subsys -> devices_subsys Signed-off-by: Satoru Takeuchi<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc1/Documentation/kobject.txt === --- linux-2

[PATCH] doc: add uio document to docbook compilation target

Add uio document to DocBook compilation target. `make *docs' doesn't generate "The Userspace I/O HOWTO", the user space I/O document written in DocBook. Signed-off-by: Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux/Docu

Re: [PATCH] doc: add uio document to docbook compilation target

Hi Randy, At Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:49:42 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:21:01 +0900 Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > > Add uio document to DocBook compilation target. > > > > `make *docs' doesn't generate "The Userspace I/O HOWTO&qu

Re: [PATCH -rt] whitespace cleanup for 2.6.20-rc5-rt7

> rm "$TMP" > > } > > > > for i in "$@" > > do > > strip1 "$i" > > done > > " > > http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt > I believe: > > for i in "$@

CPU hotplug: system hang on CPU hot remove during `pfmon --system-wide'

Hi, I found a bug on CPU hotplug. If `pfmon --system-wide' is running, CPU hot remove causes system hang. On the other hand, CPU hot add during that command seems to work fine. I detected this problem on my ia64 box, and I don't know that this problem is also occur on any arch or freezer based CP

[BUG] signal: multithread program returns with wrong errno on receiving SIGSTOP

o timing issue. I suspect that group_stop_count counting mechanism has something wrong and signal handling is canceled erroneously. Any hints or patch itself are welcome. Thanks, Satoru --- /* * mt-wrong-errno.c * *

[BUG] CPU hotplug: system hang on CPU hot remove during oprofile

Hi, I found a bug on CPU hotplug. If oprofile is running, CPU hot remove causes system hang. I only confirm that this problem occurs on my ia64 box. I'm glad if someone report about other arch. How to reproduce 1) start oprofile # opcontrol --start 2) offline a CPU. # ech

Re: [BUG] signal: multithread program returns with wrong errno on receiving SIGSTOP

Hi Oleg, At Mon, 28 May 2007 11:07:53 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > > > I found a bug on signal subsystem. If there is some multithread program > > and one of the thread is blocking on the system call, it returns with > > wrong

Re: [BUG] signal: multithread program returns with wrong errno on receiving SIGSTOP

Hi Andrew, > What kernel versions is this occurring on? 2.6.22-rc3 is. Satoru At Tue, 29 May 2007 01:03:15 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:32:00 +0900 Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I found a bug o

Re: [PATCH] tty: fix leakage of -ERESTARTSYS to userland

onnected" to "return -ERESTARTSYS", > not to kill_pgrp(), imho the new helper is not so suitable. > > Perhaps it makes sense to add the comment into include/linux/errno.h, to > explain that -ERESTART... codes are only valid when signal_pending() == true. Like this?

  1   2   3   >