On Wed, 06 Jan, at 02:22:37PM, Luis Henriques wrote: > [ Adding Greg and Kamal ] > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:31:55PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:24:55AM, Luis Henriques wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:00:31AM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:47:20AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Without testing the problematic scenario explicitly (32-bit UEFI > > > > > kernel), I think this patch and 26/91 should not be backported to > > > > > kernels that do not have 23a0d4e8fa6d. > > > > > > > > I tend to agree. > > > > > > I can see these 2 commits in kernels as old as 3.10 (which definitely do > > > not include 23a0d4e8fa6d). Does this mean these should be reverted from > > > stable kernels that already include these patches? Or would you rather > > > recommend to backport 23a0d4e8fa6d? > > > > That depends on your appetite for risk ;-) > > > > Heh, I guess stable kernels aren't really about appetite for risk :-) > > > 23a0d4e8fa6d does fix a legitimate bug, albeit one that no one seems > > to have ever hit. Personally, I'd go for backporting 23a0d4e8fa6d. > > This commit doesn't seem to be too bad to backport. I'm attaching 2 > backports: > > - one is for the 3.16 stable kernel, > - the other can be applied to 3.10, 3.12 and 3.13 > > (For the other kernels, I believe 23a0d4e8fa6d will be a clean > cherry-pick.) FWIW they look OK to me. -- 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