From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934406AbaDITz3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:55:29 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:58066 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933342AbaDITz0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:55:26 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: QB/Sw4CLxoX95d/R3VrIeVuPk6/NEfiucsxCXl0Xf2zj 1397073323 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:57:55 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stefan Bader , Toralf =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=F6rster?= , Michele Ballabio , Linux Kernel Mailing List , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , David Cohen , Paolo Bonzini , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH -stable] x86,preempt: Fix preemption for i386 Message-ID: <20140409195755.GA12513@kroah.com> References: <20140407150705.GB13658@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5342EB78.3060002@gmx.de> <20140407185658.GK11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140408122128.GC13658@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <53450F7E.7040904@canonical.com> <20140409094515.GR11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140409142447.GD13658@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140409191931.GB10748@kroah.com> <20140409193845.GB26782@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140409193845.GB26782@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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