From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755236Ab0A0AwG (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:52:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752235Ab0A0AwE (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:52:04 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:56045 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752146Ab0A0AwA (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:52:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:50:50 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Greg KH Cc: Wu Fengguang , stable@kernel.org, Andi Kleen , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , LKML , Linux Memory Management List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] devmem and readahead fixes for 2.6.33 Message-Id: <20100126165050.6ab7977b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100122053157.GA8312@suse.de> References: <20100122045914.993668874@intel.com> <20100122053157.GA8312@suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:31:57 -0800 Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:59:14PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > Andrew, > > > > Here are some good fixes for 2.6.33, they have been floating around > > with other patches for some time. I should really seperate them out > > earlier.. > > > > Greg, > > > > The first two patches are on devmem. 2.6.32 also needs fixing, however > > the patches can only apply cleanly to 2.6.33. I can do backporting if > > necessary. > > > > [PATCH 1/4] devmem: check vmalloc address on kmem read/write > > [PATCH 2/4] devmem: fix kmem write bug on memory holes > > After these hit Linus's tree, please send the backport to > stable@kernel.org and I will be glad to queue them up. > I tagged the first two patches for -stable and shall send them in for 2.6.33. The second two patches aren't quite as obvious - perhaps a risk of weird regressions. So I'm thinking I'll send them in for 2.6.34-rc1 and I tagged them as "[2.6.33.x]" for -stable, so you can feed them into 2.6.33.x once 2.6.34-rcX has had a bit of testing time, OK?