Re: [PATCH -v3 0/5] x86, cacheinfo, amd: L3 Cache Index Disable fixes
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Fri Jan 22 2010 - 12:50:13 EST
On 01/22/2010 09:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> Those patches are also good -stable candidates.
>> Hmmm... I'm not sure I see a strong justification for a late -rc push
>> into Linus/stable push for for these... I think you would have to
>> explicitly make the case if you want them to be considered as such.
> Well, on the one hand, they fix real bugs in the L3 cache index disable
> code and since they're bugfixes, they are eligible late -rc candidates.
Bugfixes are *early* -rc candidates. Regression fixes are *late* -rc
candidates, at least that seems to be the policy Linus currently
implements. -stable seems to use slightly less strict criteria (the
whole point is that -final needs to be a stabilization point, backported
fixes/drivers can then come onto a stable base) which is why you seem
some patches which are "straight to .1".
> On the other hand, however and more importantly, the machines which
> have that feature are not selling yet so postponing the patches for the
> next merge window is still ok. I'll backport them then to .32 for the
> distro kernels and .33 and I think we are going to be fine this way.
> So queueing them for .34 is still fine with me, thanks.
OK. You can check with -stable if they want to take the backport post-.33.
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/