On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:05:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On 04/24/2013 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 04:34:26PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> > >>On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, John Stultz wrote: > >>>On 04/08/2013 05:47 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >>>>A simple check for an overflow can resolve this problem. Using KTIME_MAX > >>>>instead of the overflow value will result in the hrtimer function being run, > >>>>and the reprogramming of the timer after that. > >>>> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>Prarit: Should this be tagged for -stable? > >>John, > >> > >>Yes, this should go to -stable. cc'd. > >> > >Hi, > > > >I am a bit surprised that this patch has not found its way into mainline yet, > >as everyone seems to agree that it is a candidate for -stable. > > It just has to land upstream first, which is likely in the next week > or so when the 3.10 merge window opens. I'd have thought it would be > sooner but 3.9 is taking longer to close then I expected (and I > didn't think it was urgent enough to drop in at the last minute > before the 3.9 release was made). > Guess I am a bit lost in process. If this is going to be in -stable, it will presumably end up in 3.9.x as well as in earlier releases. So why wasn't it pushed into 3.9-rcX to start with ? Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html