From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Make kvm_lock non-raw Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:59:25 +0300 Message-ID: <20130923145925.GA10353@redhat.com> References: <1379340373-5135-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20130922074238.GG25202@redhat.com> <523EAFFA.6060203@redhat.com> <20130922095348.GJ25202@redhat.com> <524043C5.70700@windriver.com> <524045B5.5020308@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Paul Gortmaker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <524045B5.5020308@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 03:44:21PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 23/09/2013 15:36, Paul Gortmaker ha scritto: > >> > The change is not completely trivial, it splits lock. There is no > >> > obvious problem of course, otherwise you wouldn't send it and I > >> > would ack it :), but it does not mean that the chance for problem is > >> > zero, so why risk stability of stable even a little bit if the patch > >> > does not fix anything in stable? > >> > > >> > I do not know how -rt development goes and how it affects decisions for > >> > stable acceptance, why can't they carry the patch in their tree until > >> > they move to 3.12? > > The -rt tree regularly carries mainline backports that are of interest > > to -rt but perhaps not of interest to stable, so there is no problem > > doing the same with content like this, if desired. > > Perfect, I'll queue [v2 of] these patches for 3.12 then. > Why 3.12 if it is not going to stable? -- Gleb.