On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 11:03:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. Ok, so I'll post them then. It will require adding commit f792685006274a850e6cc0ea9ade275ccdfc90bc and it's revert, commit f3002134158092178be81339ec5a22ff80e6c308 upstream, but that's no issue at all. Stanislaw -- 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