Re: [PATCH 0/5] i387: stable kernel backport

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-02-23T19:36:35Z

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:41:57AM +0800, raphael@buro.asia wrote:
> On 23.02.2012 10:55, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM, <raphael@buro.asia> wrote:
> >>
> >>Thank you for backporting this patchset to -stable. FWIW, the
> >>test machine I
> >>had been working with has an uptime of 4 days now, with the
> >>patchset in
> >>attachment applied on top of 3.2.6, so if it were unpractical to
> >>trim it
> >>down further you can find solace in that it does not break anything.
> >
> >Hmm. The patches in your attachements are whitespace-damaged. I was
> >going to apply that series and see what the difference was to my
> >minimal trial, but with the corruption that isn't possible.
> >
> >I didn't find anything obviously wrong in my series, so..
> >
> >Could you send the patches you used for your backport with the
> >whitespace fixed, and preferably with the patch numbering explained?
>
> The numbering is just so I can apply the patches in the right order
> with a for loop in the packaging script. The missing 7* was the
> experimental patches we tried which moved has_fpu in the thread_info
> struct (which did not work).
>
> The patchset is simply made of:
> be98c2cdb15ba26148cd2bd58a857d4f7759ed38 (unmodified)
> 5b1cbac37798805c1fee18c8cebe5c0a13975b17 (")
> c38e23456278e967f094b08247ffc3711b1029b2 (")
> 15d8791cae75dca27bfda8ecfe87dca9379d6bb0 (")
> b6c66418dcad0fcf83cd1d0a39482db37bf4fc41 (")
> 6d59d7a9f5b723a7ac1925c136e93ec83c0c3043 (")
> b3b0870ef3ffed72b92415423da864f440f57ad6 (")

These all applied fine, I've queued them up so far.

> 4903062b5485f0e2c286a23b44c9b59d9b017d53: this one requires a slight
> modification:
> -#define safe_address (kstat_cpu(0).cpustat.user)
> instead of:
> -#define safe_address
> (__get_cpu_var(kernel_cpustat).cpustat[CPUTIME_USER])

Hm, for 3.0-stable, yes, that's all that seems to be needed, but for
3.2-stable, something is odd here, there's some changes that are missing
here to get this correct (odds are you didn't test this on a AMD
processor, that's the odd portion of the merge.)

I'll dig into this some more, maybe we need another patch here...

greg k-h