Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934994AbdGTMeb (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:34:31 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:31912 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933882AbdGTMe2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:34:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:33:21 +0200 From: Daniel Kiper To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jgross@suse.com Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Boris Ostrovsky , Ard Biesheuvel , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.12 26/84] x86/xen/efi: Initialize only the EFI struct members used by Xen Message-ID: <20170720123321.GK9468@olila.local.net-space.pl> References: <20170719092322.362625377@linuxfoundation.org> <20170719092323.396710042@linuxfoundation.org> <20170719103747.GZ4448@olila.local.net-space.pl> <20170720083910.aygobq7t7g7laszt@gmail.com> <20170720091639.GA1071@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170720091639.GA1071@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1089 Lines: 29 On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:16:39AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:39:10AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > > > Hey Greg, > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:43:32AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > 4.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > Why did you skip this patch for 4.11? IMO it should be applied there too. > > > > The thing is, this patch should probaly not even be in v4.12, as it should only > > make any difference if there's a separate _bug_ in the kernel. > > > > This patch makes things more robust going forward, but I question that it needs to > > be in -stable. > > Yeah, good point, I'm going to go drop it entirely from the 4.12-stable > tree as it obviously isn't stable material, sorry for not catching that > before. Wait a minute. IIRC, Juergen told me last week that this patch fixes a bug found/assigned by/to him. Juergen? If it is true then I would apply it to stable. If I am wrong you can drop it. Thanks, Daniel