From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH][STABLE] KVM: x86: Fix TSS size check for 16-bit tasks Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:47:04 +0300 Message-ID: <4BCED7A8.40403@redhat.com> References: <4BC5D7C7.7090406@siemens.com> <4BCEC28A.9060309@redhat.com> <4BCED2AD.5030904@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20592 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754138Ab0DUKrI (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:47:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BCED2AD.5030904@siemens.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/21/2010 01:25 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> This (and the exception thing) does not qualify under the usual stable >> rules (regression or host security: in, otherwise out). I prefer to >> delay brining up a new guest for one release rather than risk a >> regression. If you have a special requirement for it this can be relaxed. >> >> > In the end, we have to convince the customer's distro provider to > include this. It would have been easier with an upstream merge, but it > also is not impossible without it. > > But I'm not 100% convinced that the criteria you mentioned match all the > merged stable patches. There have been feature fixes before - though > they had more impact on common guests. Right, we try to balance risk and pain. > I can understand your concerns > regarding the exception fix (which diverges from master after recent > refactorings), but I can't see what makes this obvious fix problematic. > The TSS fix is indeed trivial. I'll queue it up. Nevertheless, even trivial fixes have risks. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function