Re: [PATCH 0/5] i387: stable kernel backport

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 07:37:27PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:41 PM,  <raphael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The patchset is simply made of:
> > be98c2cdb15ba26148cd2bd58a857d4f7759ed38 (unmodified)
> > 5b1cbac37798805c1fee18c8cebe5c0a13975b17 (")
> > c38e23456278e967f094b08247ffc3711b1029b2 (")
> > 15d8791cae75dca27bfda8ecfe87dca9379d6bb0 (")
> > b6c66418dcad0fcf83cd1d0a39482db37bf4fc41 (")
> > 6d59d7a9f5b723a7ac1925c136e93ec83c0c3043 (")
> > b3b0870ef3ffed72b92415423da864f440f57ad6 (")
> > 4903062b5485f0e2c286a23b44c9b59d9b017d53: this one requires a slight
> > modification:
> > -#define safe_address (kstat_cpu(0).cpustat.user)
> > instead of:
> > -#define safe_address (__get_cpu_var(kernel_cpustat).cpustat[CPUTIME_USER])
> > f94edacf998516ac9d849f7bc6949a703977a7f3 (unmodified)
> > 34ddc81a230b15c0e345b6b253049db731499f7e (")
> 
> Oh, Greg, since that series is tested by Raphael on top of 3.2.6
> already, let's just make that be the stable backport.
> 
> It does mean that the stable backport will contain that whole "rip out
> fp state preloading and reimplement it" thing, but hey, considering
> that when I tried to avoid it I clearly screwed something up, maybe
> that's all for the best. And perhaps staying closer to the development
> tree is a good idea anyway in case there are any other issues.

I prefer the "staying closer" model, it works out better if there are
problems found later on.  I'll work on queuing these up now.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/