From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
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 <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>);
        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 <prarit@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
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
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.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 <prarit@redhat.com> 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
>