From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758956AbcDITOb (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2016 15:14:31 -0400 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:47006 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754831AbcDITOa (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2016 15:14:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 20:14:17 +0100 From: One Thousand Gnomes To: Pavel Machek Cc: Michal Feix , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines Message-ID: <20160409201417.4436d4bd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20160409160119.GA19362@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> References: <606d9b223f3c12775d108b98c4df72ae@feix.cz> <20160409160119.GA19362@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> Organization: Intel Corporation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-redhat-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 > > I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > > underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > > kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? > > If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS file, and > put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. > > I'm sure someone cares :-). Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. Alan