From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752692AbaHLF4c (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:56:32 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:52079 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752526AbaHLF4a (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:56:30 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: ayexdPxFbGEvQQF6PLYRw5qo7Z795DfkCQJdB88yUGGo 1407822989 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:55:48 +0800 From: Greg KH To: Amit Shah Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Amos Kong , Virtualization List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [3.16 stable PATCH 1/1] virtio-rng: fix multi-device startup Message-ID: <20140812055548.GB12762@kroah.com> References: <5ef3aa4ea1932b7655d9db5a0139b8a2922af0db.1407760907.git.amit.shah@redhat.com> <20140811225527.GB10721@kroah.com> <20140812053158.GJ4184@grmbl.mre> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140812053158.GJ4184@grmbl.mre> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:01:58AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [06:55:27], Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:11:47PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > This is a 3.16-only patch. The linux.git fix is > > > 5c06273401f2eb7b290cadbae18ee00f8f65e893, which fixes this issue in a > > > different way. > > > > Why "different"? Why can't I take that original patch instead? What is > > different in this patch, and why? > > The commit referenced moves the hwrng_register() call to the ->scan() > callback instead of it being in probe(). This was done to ensure the > virtio-rng devices can contribute to the initial system entropy > introduced in commit d9e7972619334. > > That patch is quite small too, but will need a slight conflict > resolution due to the previous two code-shuffling patches, and also > the following revert. > > However, I decided against the backport of the ->scan() method, since > it wasn't designed to solve this regression, it happens to solve it, > and it actually introduces new functionality. I would be happy to > provide a backport of the relevant patches, if you think that would be > alright. I almost always want "original" patches as it causes less bugs overall, and less confusion for everyone involved. Taking 2-3 patches is just as easy as 1 patch, and even easier if I don't have to review it as "hard" due to it not differing from what is in Linus's tree. thanks, greg k-h