From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [stable] [PATCH 00/12] xen/paravirt_ops patches for 2.6.24 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:03:35 -0800 Message-ID: <20071114190335.GA10024@kroah.com> References: <20071015204840.074767068@goop.org> <20071015215406.GA1588@kroah.com> <4713E2D6.90801@goop.org> <20071113232258.GA10338@kroah.com> <473B4132.5030402@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <473B4132.5030402@goop.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Linus Torvalds , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, LKML , Andi Kleen , Chris Wright , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton , Keir Fraser , Stable Kernel List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:40:50AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > These don't apply now due to the x86 merge. Care to backport them and > > send them to the stable@kernel.org address so we can apply them > > properly? > > I'm a bit confused. The patches you mailed out are against arch/i386. > Won't they apply to the stable tree as-is? Was this second series a new set, or a different one? I was assuming they were new patches, and that they too needed to be applied. These patches were sent against the merged x86 tree, not the -stable tree with i386. > > Although, it's not like anyone actually uses the in-kernel Xen on > > 2.6.23, so it's probably not really worth it. > > > > To be fair, those fixes were in response to bug reports raised on the > released 2.6.23 kernel. But it isn't screamingly urgent. Ok, that's fine, but can you send some patches that I can apply? :) thanks, greg k-h