Re: [STABLE] kernel oops which can be fixed by peterz's patches

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non
> > > trivial, however they've been in for a while now and nothing broke, so I
> > > suppose backporting them isn't a problem.
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > What do you think about the way to solve this oops problem? Could you just
> > give your opinion of the way? Or ack or nack about this backporting?
> 
> Or would it be better to create a new simple patch with which we can solve
> the oops problem, because your patch is too complicated to backport to
> stable tree? What do you think about that?

I would prefer just backporting existing stuff, we know that works.

A separate patch for stable doesn't make sense to me; you get extra
chances for fail and a divergent code-base.