From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755414AbcINBTp (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:19:45 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:39158 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754636AbcINBTm (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:19:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 03:19:48 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: KVM patches applied in weird order in -stable Message-ID: <20160914011948.GA20866@kroah.com> References: <20160913145100.GK3872@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160913145809.GA28002@kroah.com> <1b809ad3-2fee-b67d-fcbb-fb35e8fa7f30@redhat.com> <20160913165704.GA27570@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:58:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 13/09/2016 18:57, Greg KH wrote: > >>>> > >> [0] commit 4e422bdd2f84 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >>>> > >> [1] commit 172b2386ed16 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >>>> > >> [2] commit 70e4da7a8ff6 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints") > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> but this is the order for linux-4.4.y > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> [1] commit fc90441e728a ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >>>> > >> [2] commit 25e8618619a5 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints") > >>>> > >> [0] commit 0f6e5e26e68f ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> The upshot is that KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD is always set when returning > >>>> > >> from kvm_arch_vcpu_load() in stable, but not in Linus' tree. > >>> > > > >>> > > How would applying these in a different order cause breakage? > >> > > >> > [2] is reverting [0]+[1]. Stable is not due to the different order. > > Really? Are you sure that [0] and [1] isn't just the same commit? It > > looks like that to me. > > It is; "git" automatically resolved the conflicts when merging [1], and > then [2] reverted the change. In stable, changing the order created a > different conflict resolution. Yes, given that I turn them into individual patches, the order I used was really the only one that would work, and is how this happened :) thanks, greg k-h