From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Make kvm_lock non-raw Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:44:21 +0200 Message-ID: <524045B5.5020308@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gleb Natapov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com To: Paul Gortmaker Return-path: In-Reply-To: <524043C5.70700@windriver.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org 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. Paolo