From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:32966 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751463AbcIIQMM (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:12:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:12:17 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Fabio Estevam , stable , Fabio Estevam Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/gic: Allow self-SGIs for SMP on UP configurations Message-ID: <20160909161217.GA5847@kroah.com> References: <1473428682-14552-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com> <57D2C9F1.5070900@arm.com> <57D2D868.7090205@arm.com> <57D2DDEA.4050505@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57D2DDEA.4050505@arm.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:06:02PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 09/09/16 16:48, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > >>> Without this patch imx6ul SoC hangs after a 'reboot' command. > >> > >> But that's not a regression, right? It *never* worked before, as far as > >> I know, because we never supported such a configuration in the past. > > > > imx6ul is supported since kernel 4.3. > > And yet nobody reported this as an issue until the 4.8 cycle. So it > doesn't look like it was annoying anyone until then. > > > > >> I'm a bit concerned when I see backporting random patches to random > >> kernel versions for things that are not bugs. I'll leave it up to Greg > >> to decide, but I thought I should point out what this patch actually is. > > > > Not bugs? I consider the hang I get after running 'reboot' on imx6ul a bug. > > > > According to Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt : > > > > " - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things > > marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real > > security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something > > critical. " > > > > , so that's why I submitted for stable inclusion. > > > > I don't, which is why I didn't tag it for stable the first place. I > consider this as an unsupported configuration (MP CPU on a UP GIC), > which we start supporting from 4.8 onward. > > Anyway, I'm not going to argue any further for such a small patch, but > I've made my position clear. As the maintainer wants this removed, I've now dropped it from the 4.7-stable queue. Fabio, just use 4.8 on this hardware and you should be fine. thanks, greg k-h