> From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 04:50 > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:23:39PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: > > [...] > > > Hi Lorenzo, Bjorn, and all, > > Do you need more ACKs? Currently Michael and Haiyang reviewed and ack'd > > the patchset. > > > > Should I send a v4 that just removes the "CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" tag > > for patches 1, 2, 4 and 5? I tend to avoid a v4 as I supppose it would be > > easier if you just remove the tags if you belive it's necessary (IMHO all the > > 6 paches are not big and it would be great if we can have all of them in > > the old stable kernels, but I respect your decision). > > I think you need a v4 since for patches that are actually fixing a bug I > want a Fixes: tag added and I want them to be applicable independently > of other patches in the series. Send them in a separate series if you > prefer - I just want to make sure they apply independently. Ok, I'll send 2 series: one for [6/6] PCI: hv: fix 2 hang issues in hv_compose_msi_msg() [3/6] PCI: hv: serialize the present/eject work items These fix real issues reported by Mellanox when they tested SR-IOV with VMs runnning on Hyper-V. I'll add stable tags for them. The other series will cover these 4 patces which don't need to go in stable: [5/6] PCI: hv: hv_pci_devices_present(): only queue a new work when necessary [4/6] PCI: hv: remove hbus->enum_sem [2/6] PCI: hv: hv_eject_device_work(): remove the bogus test [1/6] PCI: hv: fix a comment typo in _hv_pcifront_read_config() > As for marking patches for stable kernels, I do not think it is right > to send cosmetic churn to stable kernels anyway, at least that's my > reading of the policy. > > You can easily post a v4 with patches reshuffled - I will apply them > accordingly. OK. > Before re-posting please read this to improve formatting (I can do it > for you but while at it you can do it yourself): > https://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=150905742808166&w=2 Will read. Thanks! -- Dexuan
