From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752858Ab0ISJkH (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:40:07 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36733 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751790Ab0ISJkF (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:40:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed access in sched_getaffinity() From: Mike Galbraith To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , stable-review@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk In-Reply-To: <1284873006.7467.1.camel@marge.simson.net> References: <20100918185724.290702750@clark.site> <20100918185958.285024381@clark.site> <1284841948.5879.301.camel@localhost> <1284873006.7467.1.camel@marge.simson.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:40:13 +0200 Message-Id: <1284889213.23005.80.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 07:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 21:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I'm somewhat disturbed by the number of non-trivial scheduler changes > > here. How well have these been tested as applied to the 2.6.32.y > > branch? > > All of them of course. (parse error) The patch set saw a lot of stress and benchmark hours on boxen large and small, to be as sure as anyone can be that it was not going to upset the enterprise apple cart, nor harm the desktop. I call it heavily tested, but can't post a detailed log of everything done on every box for others to decide for themselves, since I didn't compile same. -Mike