Hi Greg, On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:17:07AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:52:42AM +0800, shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > commit ae705930fca6322600690df9dc1c7d0516145a93 upstream. > > No, that's not what the patch below really is. > > Do I have to go back by hand and verify each one of these really is the > patch you say it is? That's a major pain... > This is a backport of the referenced commit, but it couldn't be applied directly because of the churn in the vgic code. I believed that the commit X upstream notation would indicate the equivalent fix upstream, not the *exact* commit for the relevant stable kernel. Apologies if that was an incorrect assumption. I believe this is the only patch which was significantly rewritten because of the churn in the vgic code and enough users are seeing this in various distro kernels that I figured it was important to refactor and backport. What would you like me to do with this patch? Note that I didn't understand that this is wrong from reading Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, which may just be because I'm being stupid. Is the procedure that we're violating documented somewhere? Thanks, -Christoffer -- 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