From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758134AbcHDJXv (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 05:23:51 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:33199 "EHLO mail-pf0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754482AbcHDJXt (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 05:23:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:23:07 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Alex Thorlton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russ Anderson , Mike Travis , Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case Message-ID: <20160804092307.GI3636@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1469572713-113354-1-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com> <1469572713-113354-2-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com> <20160801134957.GH3636@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160801142806.GI5939@stormcage.americas.sgi.com> <20160803193607.GN5939@stormcage.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160803193607.GN5939@stormcage.americas.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 03 Aug, at 02:36:07PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:28:06AM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > So, it definitely needs to go in for v4.8, but it's kind of a toss-up > > for the older kernels. I'll discuss this with the other guys around > > here to see what they think, and get back to you a bit later, if that's > > alright? > > We talked about this, and I think everyone here agrees that there's not > much point in pulling this change back to the older kernels. The only > exception here would be that we'd definitely like this change on the > older kernels *if* my other memmap fixes get ported back to those > kernels, though I don't know what the chances are of those changes > making it through stable. > > So, unless you have a particular reason that you'd like to pull it back > to the old kernels, or you think that my other fixes might make it back > there, I don't see much point. > > Let me know what you think! Sound reasoning. I'll apply this to v4.8 only.