On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:44:13PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > 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? You need to document the heck out of the fact that this looks very different from the git commit id that you are referencing here. Not saying anything makes me assume something went wrong. thanks, greg k-h -- 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