On 02/17/2018 05:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:52:20AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:10:44AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 07:48:50AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 06:31:48PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:17:32PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
Consider this an objection:
I'm currently arguing that this is unnecessarily regressing power
consumption here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10149195/
I'll leave it up to you what to do with this, but if this ends up in
Chromium OS kernels, I'm likely to revert it there...
Is that patch in Linus's tree yet? If so, I'll be glad to also apply it
here.
The link is the original patch, where I'm (too late?) complaining about
its side effects. Hans and Marcel are discussing potential alternatives.
This stuff happens in -rc kernels. But you're already ready to push it
out to -stable users? I can try to push another few reverts into Linus's
tree if that really helps, or else you can wait on pushing these to
-stable until 4.16 settles down.
FWIW, here are the various commit SHAs.
Upstream: 61f5acea8737
v4.15 (queued for v4.15.4): e766a2d7f7c2
v4.14 (queued for v4.14.20): 736385472dfa
v4.9 (queued for v4.9.82): 1c6fc2167678
v4.4 (queued for v4.4.116): 575538a5371d
I didn't check older stable kernels.
Thanks, but I've now released all of these with this patch committed, so
we are now "bug compatible" :)
FWIW, seems to me that trying to be "bug compatible" with -rc1 upstream
kernels may not really be a good idea for stable releases.
Guenter