Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-17 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:38:48AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 07:11:12AM +0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 10/11/2012 07:31 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:58:04PM +0900, Greg KH wrote: > > >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tar

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-11 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:38:48AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 07:11:12AM +0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 10/11/2012 07:31 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:58:04PM +0900, Greg KH wrote: > > >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tar

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 07:11:12AM +0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/11/2012 07:31 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:58:04PM +0900, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >>> If you think these patches constitute a regression, I

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-11 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 10/11/2012 07:31 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:58:04PM +0900, Greg KH wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> If you think these patches constitute a regression, I can revert them. >>> However I'd like convincing arguments since they'r

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:09:00PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote: > Hi Willy, > > Willy Tarreau writes: > > > RDRAND certainly qualifies as a source of entropy and I judged it was > > appropriate for a backport for this reason. Nobody has objected about > > this during the review, but maybe you

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-11 Thread Romain Francoise
Hi Willy, Willy Tarreau writes: > RDRAND certainly qualifies as a source of entropy and I judged it was > appropriate for a backport for this reason. Nobody has objected about > this during the review, but maybe you have a different opinion and valid > reasons for these patches to be reverted ?

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:58:04PM +0900, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > If you think these patches constitute a regression, I can revert them. > > However I'd like convincing arguments since they're here to help address > > a real issue. > > If

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-11 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Romain, > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:05:32PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote: > > Hi Willy, > > > > Willy Tarreau writes: > > > > > I've just released Linux 2.6.32.60. > > > > > This release contains, among others, a number of

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Romain, On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:05:32PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote: > Hi Willy, > > Willy Tarreau writes: > > > I've just released Linux 2.6.32.60. > > > This release contains, among others, a number of fixes for random and NTP, > > including for the NTP leap second bug. Users should

Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

2012-10-10 Thread Romain Francoise
Hi Willy, Willy Tarreau writes: > I've just released Linux 2.6.32.60. > This release contains, among others, a number of fixes for random and NTP, > including for the NTP leap second bug. Users should upgrade. I'm somewhat surprised to see that it also includes a new feature, namely support fo