On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:47:34AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/5/2019 7:16 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:02:58AM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
Decode the hubless UVsystab passed from BIOS to the kernel saving pertinent info in a similar manner that hubbed UVsystabs are decoded.
Signed-off-by: Mike Travis mike.travis@hpe.com Reviewed-by: Steve Wahl steve.wahl@hpe.com Reviewed-by: Dimitri Sivanich dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com To: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de To: Ingo Molnar mingo@redhat.com To: H. Peter Anvin hpa@zytor.com To: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Borislav Petkov bp@alien8.de To: Christoph Hellwig hch@infradead.org Cc: Dimitri Sivanich dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com Cc: Russ Anderson russ.anderson@hpe.com Cc: Hedi Berriche hedi.berriche@hpe.com Cc: Steve Wahl steve.wahl@hpe.com Cc: x86@kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
If you are trying to get one of my automated "WTF: patch XXXX was seriously submitted to be applied to the stable tree?" emails, you are on track for it...
Please go read the documentation link I sent you last time and figure out how you can justify any of this patch series for a stable kernel tree.
Is it because it has fixes for new hardware? If so, then I'll quit submitting them to stable (we've had requests from distros for all updates be in the stable tree for acceptance). Otherwise I thought it does comply with:
" - To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or subsystem maintainer."
Or is there some other reason that I'm not understanding?
Yes, that's how you get a patch applied, but how in the world does all of the patches in this series actually meet the requirements of a patch that should be applied to the stable kernel tree?
I see no regression fixes, no new device ids, no bug fixes. Only support for new hardware, i.e. a new feature to the kernel for something that never worked in the first place.
And yes, distros do request bugfixes to get added to stable trees, that's great, but I fail to understand how any of these patches are "bug fixes". Maybe you need to work on your changelog texts...
good luck!
greg k-h