[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] performance walnuts

On 3/6/19 12:08 PM, speck for Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 01:02:30PM +0000, speck for David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-03-06 at 12:56 +0100, speck for Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 10:23:52AM +0100, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, speck for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or whatever shiney new name they ought to get.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently the intent is to have these patches magically appears in source
>>>>> repos on the 12th.
>>>>
>>>> I made them magically appear in the speck repo:
>>>>
>>>>   cvs.ou.linutronix.de:linux/speck/linux tsx-5.0
>>>>
>>>> and backports in the branches tsx-4.20, tsx-4.19, tsx-4.14. Git bundles
>>>> are attached.
>>>>
>>>> I leave the dead kernel backports to the honorable members of the Kernel
>>>> Necrophilia cult as usual.
>>>
>>> Many thanks for doing these backports.  I'll use them for the stable
>>> updates next week.  As for kernels older than 4.14, I'll maybe try
>>> 4.9 on my own...
>>
>> Let me know if you want me to take a look. I'm travelling next week so
>> would have to try to squeeze it in this week.
> 
> Do you all really care about 4.9.y anymore?  I thought you all had moved
> off of it to 4.14.y already.  I'll look at it tomorrow and see how bad
> it looks...

As painful as it is, we (and others) have customers on ancient kernels with no
way to upgrade for a variety of technical, regulatory and business reasons.  But
we don't expect you to start digging up old kernel and applying patches back.

In our case, we were expecting to just work on these backports (in public) after
the vulnerability and prepared code was public.  (This also gives us an
opportunity to convince embedded systems customers that they really don't care
or want backports due to overall design criteria on devices..)

--Mark

> greg k-h
>