> -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 6:58 PM > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx; pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: dell-laptop: Allocate buffer on heap rather > than globally > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:35PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 8:28 AM > > > To: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>; Darren Hart > > > <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Platform > Driver > > > <platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: dell-laptop: Allocate buffer on heap > rather > > > than globally > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 31 January 2018 11:47:35 Mario Limonciello wrote: > > > >> There is no longer a need for the buffer to be defined in > > > >> first 4GB physical address space. > > > >> > > > >> Furthermore there may be race conditions with multiple different functions > > > >> working on a module wide buffer causing incorrect results. > > > >> > > > >> Fixes: 549b4930f057658dc50d8010e66219233119a4d8 > > > > > > He-h, I had to notice this earlier... > > > > > > > Ok, you can add my: > > > > Reviewed-by: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks and sorry, Pali, it's in for-next already, can't rebase. > > > > Andy, > > Since it's already in for-next it's probably too late to add the stable CC too right? > > > > So what's the proper time now to send this to @stable? And should I just forward > existing > > patch? > > As a general rule, Andy and I should be adding Cc stable to most anything that > includes a Fixes tag that isn't from this review cycle. I've forgotten in the > past as well - sorry about that. Something we should add some tooling around I > think, so we don't miss it when checking things in to our review branches. > > As to timing. As soon as this is merged to Linus' master, it can go to stable. > Instructions for doing this are in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > > -- Thanks, I see it's in Linuses' tree today so I sent something to stable for it.
