Re: [PATCH -v3 0/5] x86, cacheinfo, amd: L3 Cache Index Disable fixes
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sat Jan 23 2010 - 02:00:29 EST
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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".
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/