On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 23:01 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> That's what I thought, so I went ahead with just the one.
> Should I queue up the other two for a future 3.2.y update?
Yeah, why not..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to maj
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:25:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 15:06 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 02:07 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
> > > know.
> > >
> > > ---
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 15:06 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 02:07 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > --
> >
> > From: Peter Zijlstra
> >
> > commit 5167e8d5417bf5c322a703d2927dae
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 02:07 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> --
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> commit 5167e8d5417bf5c322a703d2927daec727ea40dd upstream.
>
> Thanks to Charles Wang for spotting the defect
3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Peter Zijlstra
commit 5167e8d5417bf5c322a703d2927daec727ea40dd upstream.
Thanks to Charles Wang for spotting the defects in the current code:
- If we go idle during the sample window -- after
