On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:47:34AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote: > > > On 9/5/2019 7:16 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:02:58AM -0500, Mike Travis wrote: > > > Decode the hubless UVsystab passed from BIOS to the kernel saving > > > pertinent info in a similar manner that hubbed UVsystabs are decoded. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <mike.travis@xxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@xxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@xxxxxxx> > > > To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> > > > To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > To: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Hedi Berriche <hedi.berriche@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > --- > > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > If you are trying to get one of my automated "WTF: patch XXXX was > > seriously submitted to be applied to the stable tree?" emails, you are > > on track for it... > > > > Please go read the documentation link I sent you last time and figure > > out how you can justify any of this patch series for a stable kernel > > tree. > > Is it because it has fixes for new hardware? If so, then I'll quit > submitting them to stable (we've had requests from distros for all updates > be in the stable tree for acceptance). Otherwise I thought it does comply > with: > > " - To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, > add the tag > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied > to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the > author or subsystem maintainer." > > Or is there some other reason that I'm not understanding? Yes, that's how you get a patch applied, but how in the world does all of the patches in this series actually meet the requirements of a patch that should be applied to the stable kernel tree? I see no regression fixes, no new device ids, no bug fixes. Only support for new hardware, i.e. a new feature to the kernel for something that never worked in the first place. And yes, distros do request bugfixes to get added to stable trees, that's great, but I fail to understand how any of these patches are "bug fixes". Maybe you need to work on your changelog texts... good luck! greg k-h
