From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757466Ab1I2TKI (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:10:08 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58624 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755249Ab1I2TKG (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:10:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:08:55 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Doug Ledford Cc: stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jiri Slaby , Manfred Spraul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value Message-ID: <20110929190855.GA5381@suse.de> References: <20110929175716.GA5815@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 02:51:51PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Um, that's the way this patch is upstream, right? So perhaps it > > should > > be fixed there first and then I can take the fix into -stable? > > Upstream is a bit of a fuzzy statement ;-) It might be in -next, but > it's not in Linus' tree or Andrew's -mm tree or else my recent patches > would have conflicted. Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable releases. > And in fact, upon further reflection, I think maybe that particular > test could use being split into two distinct tests. One for wrapping > the byte counter, which would return -ENOMEM, and one for exceeding > RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE which would return -EPERM (not sure if that's right, I > would have to poke around elsewhere, but it seems a better response > when you are violating a ulimit than nomem to me anyway). Ok, care to get the patch into Linus's tree and then I can take it into stable? greg k-h