Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752223Ab0AWHAY (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:00:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751244Ab0AWHAX (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:00:23 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40847 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751201Ab0AWHAX (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:00:23 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:59:53 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Borislav Petkov , tglx@linutronix.de, andreas.herrmann3@amd.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 0/5] x86, cacheinfo, amd: L3 Cache Index Disable fixes Message-ID: <20100123065953.GB15774@elte.hu> References: <1264172467-25155-1-git-send-email-bp@amd64.org> <4B59DF4C.7040608@zytor.com> <20100122174049.GC19425@aftab> <4B59E507.9060403@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B59E507.9060403@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1199 Lines: 29 * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 01/22/2010 09:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >>> > >>> Those patches are also good -stable candidates. > >> > >> Hmmm... I'm not sure I see a strong justification for a late -rc push > >> into Linus/stable push for for these... I think you would have to > >> explicitly make the case if you want them to be considered as such. > > > > Well, on the one hand, they fix real bugs in the L3 cache index disable > > code and since they're bugfixes, they are eligible late -rc candidates. > > Bugfixes are *early* -rc candidates. Regression fixes are *late* -rc > candidates, at least that seems to be the policy Linus currently implements. > -stable seems to use slightly less strict criteria (the whole point is that > -final needs to be a stabilization point, backported fixes/drivers can then > come onto a stable base) which is why you seem some patches which are > "straight to .1". Yes. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/