Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:41:57 +0800 | From | raphael@buro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] i387: stable kernel backport |
| |
On 23.02.2012 10:55, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM, <raphael@buro.asia> wrote: >> >> Thank you for backporting this patchset to -stable. FWIW, the test >> machine I >> had been working with has an uptime of 4 days now, with the patchset >> in >> attachment applied on top of 3.2.6, so if it were unpractical to >> trim it >> down further you can find solace in that it does not break anything. > > Hmm. The patches in your attachements are whitespace-damaged. I was > going to apply that series and see what the difference was to my > minimal trial, but with the corruption that isn't possible. > > I didn't find anything obviously wrong in my series, so.. > > Could you send the patches you used for your backport with the > whitespace fixed, and preferably with the patch numbering explained?
The numbering is just so I can apply the patches in the right order with a for loop in the packaging script. The missing 7* was the experimental patches we tried which moved has_fpu in the thread_info struct (which did not work).
The patchset is simply made of: be98c2cdb15ba26148cd2bd58a857d4f7759ed38 (unmodified) 5b1cbac37798805c1fee18c8cebe5c0a13975b17 (") c38e23456278e967f094b08247ffc3711b1029b2 (") 15d8791cae75dca27bfda8ecfe87dca9379d6bb0 (") b6c66418dcad0fcf83cd1d0a39482db37bf4fc41 (") 6d59d7a9f5b723a7ac1925c136e93ec83c0c3043 (") b3b0870ef3ffed72b92415423da864f440f57ad6 (") 4903062b5485f0e2c286a23b44c9b59d9b017d53: this one requires a slight modification: -#define safe_address (kstat_cpu(0).cpustat.user) instead of: -#define safe_address (__get_cpu_var(kernel_cpustat).cpustat[CPUTIME_USER]) f94edacf998516ac9d849f7bc6949a703977a7f3 (unmodified) 34ddc81a230b15c0e345b6b253049db731499f7e (")
> > Linus
| |