From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758348Ab0JUVZn (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:25:43 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:38995 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754720Ab0JUVZm (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:25:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4CC0AF9A.9050307@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:24:42 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: akataria@vmware.com CC: Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal , "Eric W. Biederman" , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , Haren Myneni , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Daniel Hecht , "jeremy@xensource.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Bug during kexec...not all cpus are stopped References: <1286570087.8769.27.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1286816964.1372.2.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1286826083.1372.15.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20101011213901.GR12743@redhat.com> <20101012221717.GA27478@redhat.com> <1286929430.15658.30.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <1287688156.27008.13.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <4CC0A204.4060403@zytor.com> <1287695406.27008.31.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <1287695406.27008.31.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/21/2010 02:10 PM, Alok Kataria wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 13:26 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 10/21/2010 12:09 PM, Alok Kataria wrote: >>> >>> I don't think this patch was picked up for tip, now that the 2.6.37 >>> merge window is open can you please pick this up push it upstream. >>> This patch fixes a legitimate regression, which was introduced during >>> 2.6.30, by commit id 4ef702c10b5df18ab04921fc252c26421d4d6c75. >>> >> >> It probably would have helped if the patch had had a proper patch header >> and so on, and *in particular* not buried in a tree with [RFC PATCH]. >> RFC strongly implies that the patch is intended as a base for >> discussion, and is explicitly not intended to be committed. > > I see, I have sent another mail with the patch. > I already took the patch and am running it through compile tests, but that was mostly for future reference. -hpa