From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754966Ab2I0VsY (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:48:24 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:49452 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753287Ab2I0VsW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:48:22 -0400 Message-ID: <5064C99E.9050801@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:14 -0700 From: John Stultz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: stable@vger.kernel.org, Prarit Bhargava , Thomas Gleixner , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] 3.2-stable timekeeping fixes merged in 3.6 References: <1347402926-34813-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20120927203911.GC19489@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20120927203911.GC19489@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12092721-5930-0000-0000-00000C8B4B70 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/27/2012 01:39 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 06:35:23PM -0400, John Stultz wrote: >> Just wanted to send out a few timekeeping fixes that were merged >> in 3.6 which are appropriate for -stable. >> >> This queue backports the following fixes: >> ----------------------------------------- >> cee58483cf56e0ba355fdd97ff5e8925329aa936 time: Move ktime_t overflow checking into timespec_valid_strict >> bf2ac312195155511a0f79325515cbb61929898a time: Avoid making adjustments if we haven't accumulated anything >> 4e8b14526ca7fb046a81c94002c1c43b6fdf0e9b time: Improve sanity checking of timekeeping inputs >> >> I've run these through my timetest suite w/ kvm on both i386 >> & x86_64. But more testing would be of course appreciated. >> https://github.com/johnstultz-work/timetests >> >> I also have patch queues for all the -stable trees that I'll be >> sending out as my testing completes for those trees. > Did you also send these out for the 3.0.y tree and I just missed them? > Should I just take this 3.2.y series and see how they well apply? I did send them out for 3.0, on Sep 11. Let me know if you can't find them and I'll resend. thanks -john