Re: [PATCH -v3 0/5] x86, cacheinfo, amd: L3 Cache Index Disable fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 01/22/2010 09:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Those patches are also good -stable candidates.
> >>
> >> Hmmm... I'm not sure I see a strong justification for a late -rc push
> >> into Linus/stable push for for these... I think you would have to
> >> explicitly make the case if you want them to be considered as such.
> > 
> > Well, on the one hand, they fix real bugs in the L3 cache index disable 
> > code and since they're bugfixes, they are eligible late -rc candidates.
> 
> Bugfixes are *early* -rc candidates.  Regression fixes are *late* -rc 
> candidates, at least that seems to be the policy Linus currently implements.  
> -stable seems to use slightly less strict criteria (the whole point is that 
> -final needs to be a stabilization point, backported fixes/drivers can then 
> come onto a stable base) which is why you seem some patches which are 
> "straight to .1".

Yes.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/