On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [13:55:48], Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:01:58AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [06:55:27], Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:11:47PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > > This is a 3.16-only patch. The linux.git fix is > > > > 5c06273401f2eb7b290cadbae18ee00f8f65e893, which fixes this issue in a > > > > different way. > > > > > > Why "different"? Why can't I take that original patch instead? What is > > > different in this patch, and why? > > > > The commit referenced moves the hwrng_register() call to the ->scan() > > callback instead of it being in probe(). This was done to ensure the > > virtio-rng devices can contribute to the initial system entropy > > introduced in commit d9e7972619334. > > > > That patch is quite small too, but will need a slight conflict > > resolution due to the previous two code-shuffling patches, and also > > the following revert. > > > > However, I decided against the backport of the ->scan() method, since > > it wasn't designed to solve this regression, it happens to solve it, > > and it actually introduces new functionality. I would be happy to > > provide a backport of the relevant patches, if you think that would be > > alright. > > I almost always want "original" patches as it causes less bugs overall, > and less confusion for everyone involved. Taking 2-3 patches is just as > easy as 1 patch, and even easier if I don't have to review it as "hard" > due to it not differing from what is in Linus's tree. Thanks; I'll send a backport of the patches, then. Amit _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
