On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:38:16 +0200 Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 09:35 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2018-09-05 08:28:02 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > 4.14.63-rt41-rc1 stable review patch. > > > If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > [ Upstream commit 2a9c45d8f89112458364285cbe2b0729561953f1 ] > > > > > > Drop the Ultraviolet patch. UV looks broken upstream for PREEMPT, too. > > > Mike is the only person I know that has such a thing and he isn't going > > > to fix this upstream (from 1526977462.6491.1.camel@xxxxxx): > > > > I don't think that we need to propagate that revert for stable. I > > reverted it in the devel tree because nobody wanted this upstream and I > > couldn't test it. For that reason I didn't see the point for having it > > in the RT tree. > > However, if you want to revert it for stable, be my guest. It probably > > will have no impact and if it will people might step forward and fix it > > properly / upstream. > > I'm in favor of reverting it as useless cruft. UV has been broken > forever wrt PREEMPT, and nobody cares. The original interest in UV RT > support evaporated while 2.6.33-rt was still current (and when getting > it working took a bit more than a spinlock conversion). > Yeah, I skipped other reverts as I didn't think it was stable relevant, but this one seemed like a good idea to backport. As Mike is in favor, and Sebastian said "be my guest", I'll keep this in. -- Steve
