lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH] Drivers: hv: vmbus: finally fix hv_need_to_signal_on_read()
Date
> From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
> > > From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
> > > > > > It's interesting v4.4.44 is not impacted, but actually it needs both the 2
> > > patches:
> > > > > > i.e. this patch, and the previous one:
> > > > > > Commit a389fcfd2cb5 ("Drivers: hv: vmbus: Fix signaling logic in
> > > > > hv_need_to_signal_on_read()")
> > > > >
> > > > > That patch does not apply to the 4.4-stable tree, which is why it was
> > > > > not included there. If you feel it should be included, please provide a
> > > > > backport and send it to the stable@vger.kernel.org mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > > > Thanks! I'll do the backport after this patch goes in the mainline.
> > >
> > > Why wait?
> >
> > I thought a patch must first appear in Linus's tree, before it can be
> > back-ported to the stable tree?
>
> Commit a389fcfd2cb5 _IS_ in Linus's tree, it was released in the 4.7-rc1
> kernel, which happened in May of 2016.
>
> greg k-h

Sorry, it looks I didn't make it clear. :-)

v4.4.44 needs 2 patches, i.e. a389fcfd2cb5, and this patch (which is not in
Linus's tree yet). Only backporting the first patch immediately is not enough
and is also improper IMO, because the first patch introduces a new issue,
which is being resolved by this patch. So my understanding is that I should
backport the 2 patches together.

Thanks,
-- Dexuan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-26 10:32    [W:0.105 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site