On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 10:44 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 06:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:21 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > > > There is no response for two months since posting v4. > > > What can I do for pushing the patch to upstream? > > > > Looks to me like we have two patches floating about for more or less the > > same problem, this one, and... > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/159 > > > > ..this one, which you reviewed, and HP both reviewed and tested. > > > > We seem to kinda stuck with Boris having said don't diddle the > > cpu_llc_shared_map, but HP/Intel saying that this map diddling fixes > > their explosions. If your alternative is preferred over diddling > > cpu_llc_shared_map, perhaps HP/Intel can test/confirm that their > > explosions stay gone? > > Well, Boris mentioned later in his email: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/22/201 > > And I agree with his assessment that both patches make sense.
Nonetheless, this just reeks of "department of redundancy department". I have nothing against doing both really, but it does leave me wondering if we would not then be merging the mask clearing "just because". -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
