From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51787C18.1000408@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:43:04 -0700 From: John Stultz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck CC: Prarit Bhargava , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , stable Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer, add expiry time overflow check in hrtimer_interrupt References: <1365425235-26191-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <5163264B.3050707@linaro.org> <516329D2.1050003@redhat.com> <20130424224218.GA7767@roeck-us.net> <5178732F.6060304@linaro.org> <20130425003548.GA16159@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20130425003548.GA16159@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/24/2013 05:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:05:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: >> On 04/24/2013 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 04:34:26PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>> On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>>>> On 04/08/2013 05:47 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>>>> A simple check for an overflow can resolve this problem. Using KTIME_MAX >>>>>> instead of the overflow value will result in the hrtimer function being run, >>>>>> and the reprogramming of the timer after that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava >>>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner >>>>>> Cc: John Stultz >>>>> Prarit: Should this be tagged for -stable? >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Yes, this should go to -stable. cc'd. >>>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am a bit surprised that this patch has not found its way into mainline yet, >>> as everyone seems to agree that it is a candidate for -stable. >> It just has to land upstream first, which is likely in the next week >> or so when the 3.10 merge window opens. I'd have thought it would be >> sooner but 3.9 is taking longer to close then I expected (and I >> didn't think it was urgent enough to drop in at the last minute >> before the 3.9 release was made). >> > Guess I am a bit lost in process. > > If this is going to be in -stable, it will presumably end up in 3.9.x as well as > in earlier releases. So why wasn't it pushed into 3.9-rcX to start with ? I usually only want to push changes to -rc6+ if they are really critical, affecting lots of folks and fixing issues introduced in the same cycle. By getting less critical fixes merged during a normal merge window, then backporting them to affected -stable trees, we get better test coverage and less chance for further bugs to be introduced at the last minute before the release is made. Its maybe a bit overly conservative, but I'm less and less into late-night heroics these days. ;) thanks -john