On 13/09/2016 18:57, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> > >> [0] commit 4e422bdd2f84 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [1] commit 172b2386ed16 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [2] commit 70e4da7a8ff6 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> but this is the order for linux-4.4.y
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> [1] commit fc90441e728a ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [2] commit 25e8618619a5 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >> [0] commit 0f6e5e26e68f ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> The upshot is that KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD is always set when returning
>>>> > >> from kvm_arch_vcpu_load() in stable, but not in Linus' tree.
>>> > >
>>> > > How would applying these in a different order cause breakage?
>> >
>> > [2] is reverting [0]+[1]. Stable is not due to the different order.
> Really? Are you sure that [0] and [1] isn't just the same commit? It
> looks like that to me.
It is; "git" automatically resolved the conflicts when merging [1], and
then [2] reverted the change. In stable, changing the order created a
different conflict resolution.
Paolo
--
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