Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:36:20 -0800 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] i387: stable kernel backport |
| |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:41:57AM +0800, raphael@buro.asia wrote: > 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 (")
These all applied fine, I've queued them up so far.
> 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])
Hm, for 3.0-stable, yes, that's all that seems to be needed, but for 3.2-stable, something is odd here, there's some changes that are missing here to get this correct (odds are you didn't test this on a AMD processor, that's the odd portion of the merge.)
I'll dig into this some more, maybe we need another patch here...
greg k-h
| |