On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:24:55AM, Luis Henriques wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:00:31AM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:47:20AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > Without testing the problematic scenario explicitly (32-bit UEFI > > > kernel), I think this patch and 26/91 should not be backported to > > > kernels that do not have 23a0d4e8fa6d. > > > > I tend to agree. > > I can see these 2 commits in kernels as old as 3.10 (which definitely do > not include 23a0d4e8fa6d). Does this mean these should be reverted from > stable kernels that already include these patches? Or would you rather > recommend to backport 23a0d4e8fa6d?
That depends on your appetite for risk ;-) 23a0d4e8fa6d does fix a legitimate bug, albeit one that no one seems to have ever hit. Personally, I'd go for backporting 23a0d4e8fa6d. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
