Re: sched: Fix signedness bug in yield_to()
From: Shuah Khan
Date: Thu Feb 21 2013 - 10:50:55 EST
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Raghavendra KT
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> * Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Linux Kernel Mailing List
>>> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/;a=commit;h=c3c186403c6abd32e719f005f0af950155a9e54d
>>> > Commit: c3c186403c6abd32e719f005f0af950155a9e54d
>>> > Parent: e0a79f529d5ba2507486d498b25da40911d95cf6
>>> > Author: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > AuthorDate: Tue Feb 5 14:37:51 2013 +0300
>>> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > CommitDate: Tue Feb 5 12:59:29 2013 +0100
>>> > sched: Fix signedness bug in yield_to()
>>> > In 7b270f6099 "sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and
>>> > target runqueue has one task" we changed this to store -ESRCH so
>>> > it needs to be signed.
>>> Dan, Ingo,
>>> I can't find the 7b270f6099 "sched: Bail out of yield_to when
>>> source and target runqueue has one task" in the latest Linus's
>>> git. Am I missing something.
>>> The current kenel/sched/core.c doesn't have the code from the
>>> associated patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2016651/
>> As per the lkml discussion that one was supposed to go upstream
>> via the KVM tree. Marcelo?
> It is going via KVM tree. (as per Gleb's pull request)
Thanks. Do you see these two commits as stable release candidates?
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/