lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [stable] [git pull 2.6.36.stable] intel_idle patches for 2.6.36.stable
    On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:29:05PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
    > Hi Greg,
    >
    > please pull from:
    >
    > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-idle-2.6.36.git idle-release
    >
    > to sync 2.6.36.y with upstream changes to the intel_idle driver.
    >
    > After applying this series, 2.6.36.y and upstream intel_idle.c
    > are identical.

    That's nice, but why would I do this? I need git commit ids for the
    upstream patches that went into Linus's tree, and they should only be
    bug fixes or other stuff that is applicable for -stable.

    > commit 935558a7fefe0a307618857ad8a06e8a485b3b47
    > Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
    > Date: Wed Jul 7 00:12:03 2010 -0400
    >
    > intel_idle: add initial Sandy Bridge support
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

    Is this patch really ok for -stable? What is the git commit id of it in
    Linus's tree?

    > commit 1768bd405dc30d4db74af5eb693d6c2d3389c5a6
    > Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
    > Date: Fri Oct 15 21:23:25 2010 -0400
    >
    > intel_idle: delete bogus data from cpuidle_state.power_usage
    >
    > The mW data in this field is a total fabrication
    > and serves no purpose other than to mislead
    > those who might see it in sysfs. Delete it.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
    >
    > commit 645fd1ddc110eea7ab596b6fa27add5cff912e84
    > Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
    > Date: Fri Oct 15 20:43:06 2010 -0400
    >
    > intel_idle: simplify test for leave_mm()
    >
    > A run-time test to invoke leave_mm() for the deepest
    > supported C-state is redundant, since the appropriate
    > C-states already have flags with CPUIDLE_FLAG_TLB_FLUSHED set.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

    Is this patch really for -stable?

    > commit 27a52cf2d75b81e762c8fc41fd8fca3dac2aa8ca
    > Author: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
    > Date: Fri Sep 17 15:36:40 2010 -0700
    >
    > x86, mwait: Move mwait constants to a common header file
    >
    > We have MWAIT constants spread across three different .c files, for no
    > good reason. Move them all into a common header file.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
    > Reviewed-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
    > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
    > LKML-Reference: <tip-*@git.kernel.org>

    Why would this be ok for -stable?

    While I understand you would like the driver to be the same in both
    kernel versions, you still have to follow the normal -stable rules.

    thanks,

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-15 20:01    [W:0.025 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site