On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 11:37 +0400, Roman Kagan wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 06:15 +0400, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:43:58PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]> > > > Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:38:17 -0700 > > > > > > > Thanks! I have applied the patch to my queue > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > My impression is that this is a patch already in the tree, and it's > > > being submitted for -stable but such minor performance hacks are > > > absolutely not appropriate for -stable submission. > > > > The patch description says it is fixing reported oopses, > > Exactly. > > > but the Subject: isn't all that helpful there. > > Well I just preserved the original subject from the upstream commit. > Want me to resubmit with a more alarming one? > > > So which is this? Should I accept it for a stable release or not? > > IMO yes ;)
What came out of this discussion? Should I resubmit with a different subject, or the original one is good enough? The patch resolves a real oops; we've seen it multiple times when running Ubuntu-11.10 in virtual machines. Upstream and RHEL have the fix since long. Ubuntu is waiting for 3.0-stable to merge it (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1009545). I'd appreciate any suggestion on how to proceed. Thanks, Roman. N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+������z)����w* jg��� �����ݢj/���z�ޖ��2�ޙ����&�)ߡ�a���� �G���h��j:+v���w��٥
