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

[Byungchul Park]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:12AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I agree, I REALLY don't want to take patches that are not
> identical-as-much-as-possible to what is in Linus's tree, because almost
> every time we do, the patch is broken in some way.

I also agree and got it. Then could you check if this backporting is done
properly?

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h