From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751132Ab0ISEQ4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:16:56 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60209 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750764Ab0ISEQz (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:16:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:19:56 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Ben Hutchings Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , stable-review@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed access in sched_getaffinity() Message-ID: <20100918221956.GA25060@suse.de> References: <20100918185724.290702750@clark.site> <20100918185958.285024381@clark.site> <1284841948.5879.301.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1284841948.5879.301.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:32:28PM +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? Mike has tested these very well and gotten the ACK for them to go in from Ingo and Peter. I think they are also currently shipping in one distro's enterprise kernel as well, but am not quite sure... Ben, feel free to test them yourself and report any problems, but at the least, they do fix one reported problem, and lots of others as well. thanks, greg k-h