On 2013年11月18日 15:00, Li Zefan wrote:
On 2013/11/18 14:48, Fan Du wrote:
On 2013年11月18日 14:42, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
On 2013/11/18 14:36, Fan Du wrote:
Hi, HongJiang
On 2013年11月18日 14:25, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
Hi, Fan or Andrew,
74e3d1e17b2e11d175970b85acd44f5927000ba2
include/linux/fs.h: disable preempt when acquire i_size_seqcount write lock
This looks applicable to stable-3.4, that fix a lockup while two rt tasks
bind to one CPU core. It was built successful for me. What do you think?
I don't see any stable tree tagged as "stable-3.4", do you mean the "longterm 3.4.69"?
Yes! I mean the longterm 3.4.69.
It should be integrated into longterm 3.4.69, but usually the author of this fix is expected
to request for stable tree only, I'm not familiar with the longterm tree maintenance procedure.
I cannot help you with this, maybe Andrew will clarify your request.
Yes you can.
A longterm stable tree is a stable tree. As you're the author of this
patch, if you agree it fits for 3.4, Greg will do the remaining work.
I'm happy to do it, however I don't know in the first place how I should write
the request, and to whom I should send this. Is there any template I can refer to?
Informal/improper such request seems always upset maintainers。。。
IMO, the subsystem maintainer of this patch will make his/her judgment whether
this fix should be queued into longterm tree according to the severity of this fix.
Apparently it's not the call of the patch author.
--
浮沉随浪只记今朝笑
--fan fan
--
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