* Suresh Siddha <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:56 -0700, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Suresh Siddha <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > include/linux/stop_machine.h | 11 +++--
> > > kernel/stop_machine.c | 91
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > Btw., this is *way* too risky for a -stable backport.
> >
>
> Ingo, we can have a smaller patch (appended) for the -stable. How
> do you want to go ahead? Take this small patch for both mainline
> and -stable and the two code cleanup/consolidation patches for -tip
> (to go into 3.1?). Thanks.
this:
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> include/linux/stop_machine.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> kernel/stop_machine.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
looks pretty risky as well, this is core kernel code that is
relatively rarely used and if it breaks it causes various high impact
regressions.
Once Tejun is fine with the code we can do the larger patch upstream
but not mark it for -stable backport. Once it's been upstream for a
couple of weeks, once we are sure it does not regress, can we perhaps
forward it to -stable ...
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
