On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Andy Green <andy.gr...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 09/05/12 17:19, the mail apparently from Andy Green included: > >> On 09/04/12 12:13, the mail apparently from Ricardo Salveti included: >> >> Hi - >> >>>> 1) Can we have linux stable point release content in tilt-3.4? >>>> Rather than >>>> my doing it, isn't it better to add it to llc-3.4 and merge it on the lt >>>> history tree periodically? That way every lt can get them from one >>>> place. >>> >>> >>> I don't see why merging the stable release contents would be an issue. >>> We could keep updating the tree based on stable-only releases, as long >>> as we still have at least one Landing Team interested on consuming it. >>> >>> This would be another job that would probably be automated by Andrey's >>> scripts. >> >> >> Right it should usually be simple, although don't forget there is quite >> a lot of avant garde content in llct, such as Androidization. Just >> today I saw Xavier at TI find that merging of stable had a patch >> conflicting with llct Androidization content. > > > So, it turns out that is a good example. > > I researched the conflict and found a thread from RMK rejecting the patch > 96714b5dfe283cd8ab13aac1f9ccb565064af152 that seems to have come in by > Androidization series via llct. > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-May/014116.html > > We decided to take the kernel.org stable version of the patch > 6019ae78aa65afe273da8c0dfeed8e89fb5edf8f which removes some locking evil in > the Androidization version, which RMK noted opened up a horrible race. > > Xavier then found a ghastly bug that had previously been impossible to track > down disappeared. > > So we now know that 96714b5dfe283cd8ab13aac1f9ccb565064af152 we had been > happily pushing out on everyone in llct-3.4 is a terrible idea, not just for > TILT but any kernel that has it in will suffer from very hard to reproduce > mm instability under stress, and needs reverting in favour of the version > that went in kernel.org stable. > > But now we know about that flaw in llct-3.4 should we not do something about > it?
Yeah, at least for stable related changes I believe it'd make a lot of sense to push those to llct-3.4. Andrey, let's also coordinate the stable updates for llct-3.4 during this cycle, and then review the issues, if we get any, after the first merge/update. Cheers, -- Ricardo Salveti de Araujo _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
