* Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > I planed to post backport of just commit 68aa8efcd1ab "sched: Avoid > prev->stime underflow", which fix 3.8 -> 3.9 regression. But Lingzhu > Xiang overtake me here with this 4 patches post. I considered this as > fine, since 3.9 code will match upstream, but I did not think originally > that those additional 3 patches are needed in -stable. They are fixes, > but do not fix current regression. They fix regression introduced in > 2007 or so. > > So I'll just post backort of 68aa8efcd1ab. I'd suggest also marking those additional 3 fixes for -stable. That should make it all apply and work just fine - or are there other dependencies that make that difficult? In general the closer -stable code is to current upstream code the better - even if it means the application of 7 fixes here. It will make it (much) easier to fix bugs if they are reported against -stable. Thanks, Ingo -- 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