On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 11:02:24AM +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote: > On 05/09/2013 06:54 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 02:27:11PM +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote: > >>commit d9a3c9823a2e6a543eb7807fb3d15d8233817ec5 upstream. > >> > >>Backported for 3.9-stable. Minor context adjustment. > > > >You forgot to fix the build error that this patch causes, which makes me > >think you didn't build it: > > kernel/sched/cputime.c: In function ‘scale_stime’: > > kernel/sched/cputime.c:539:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘div64_u64_rem’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > >I've dropped all 4 of these from my queue, please fix up, and test, > >before resending them. > > I did build the patch series on x86_64 and i386. I suppose you built > with only the first patch applied? > > Indeed the first patch, > > sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow > > adds the undefined div64_u64_rem, which is promptly reverted in the > second patch, > > sched: Avoid cputime scaling overflow Is it broken this way in Linus's tree? > I avoided to do major surgery on the two patches just to remove the > reverting. The three more patches are pulled in here because the > originally failed patch semantically depends on the three and they > are actually worthy bug fixes which look like missed the 3.9 > release. > > Please tell me what you think. I think we need to get the author's of the patch, and the maintainers involved, to agree that this all needs to be in the 3.9-stable tree. thanks, greg k-h -- 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