On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non > > > > trivial, however they've been in for a while now and nothing broke, so I > > > > suppose backporting them isn't a problem. > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > What do you think about the way to solve this oops problem? Could you just > > > give your opinion of the way? Or ack or nack about this backporting? > > > > Or would it be better to create a new simple patch with which we can solve > > the oops problem, because your patch is too complicated to backport to > > stable tree? What do you think about that? > > I would prefer just backporting existing stuff, we know that works. > > A separate patch for stable doesn't make sense to me; you get extra > chances for fail and a divergent code-base. I agree, I REALLY don't want to take patches that are not identical-as-much-as-possible to what is in Linus's tree, because almost every time we do, the patch is broken in some way. 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