From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752642AbdASMaP (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:30:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54798 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752445AbdASMaN (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:30:13 -0500 Message-ID: <5880AB99.4060900@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:05:45 -0500 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Shishkin , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Harish Chegondi , Jiri Olsa , Kan Liang , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Stephane Eranian , Thomas Gleixner , Vince Weaver Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 033/120] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix hardcoded socket 0 assumption in the Haswell init code References: <20170118104648.120216880@linuxfoundation.org> <20170118104649.461809044@linuxfoundation.org> <587F7DCF.70800@redhat.com> <20170118163350.GA10804@kroah.com> <587F9E1E.4010903@redhat.com> <20170118222526.GB24486@gmail.com> <588095CE.4010601@redhat.com> <20170119114925.GA19236@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20170119114925.GA19236@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:05:47 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/19/2017 06:49 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:32:46AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> >> On 01/18/2017 05:25 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> >>> * Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> >>>> 4.9 is broken and requires additional patches beyond this patch. Applying this >>>> patch to 4.9 stable without those additional fixes will result in kernel panics >>>> on some Haswell systems that boot on random cores. >>> >>> Could you list the patches that are required? It would be nice to backport all >>> required fixes to v4.9. >>> >> >> Yeah, I'm going to do that once I get the system back. I have a feeling that >> just the two additional patches are required but I want to make sure before I >> post anything. > > So what do I do here? Drop this single patch? Add others now? Ignore > it and leave it as-is? Drop this patch. P. > > still confused, > > greg k-h >