* Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think we need to get the author's of the patch, and the maintainers
> > involved, to agree that this all needs to be in the 3.9-stable tree.
>
> I planed to post backport of just commit 68aa8efcd1ab "sched: Avoid
> prev->stime underflow", which fix 3.8 -> 3.9 regression. But Lingzhu
> Xiang overtake me here with this 4 patches post. I considered this as
> fine, since 3.9 code will match upstream, but I did not think originally
> that those additional 3 patches are needed in -stable. They are fixes,
> but do not fix current regression. They fix regression introduced in
> 2007 or so.
>
> So I'll just post backort of 68aa8efcd1ab.
I'd suggest also marking those additional 3 fixes for -stable. That should
make it all apply and work just fine - or are there other dependencies
that make that difficult?
In general the closer -stable code is to current upstream code the better
- even if it means the application of 7 fixes here. It will make it (much)
easier to fix bugs if they are reported against -stable.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
