On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:35:04AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Deucher, Alexander
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

The original patches should go into 3.6 kernels as well:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=4
a15903db02026728d0cf2755c6fabae16b8db6a

quoted

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=6
2444b7462a2b98bc78d68736c03a7c4e66ba7e2

quoted

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=8
04cc4a0ad3a896ca295f771a28c6eb36ced7903

quoted

I've been meaning to follow up on it, but I haven't had the time.  Do I need

to send explicit patches to stable@vger or can I just ask the above commits
be cherrypicked to 3.6?

quoted

Normally the CC tag works.  Not entirely sure why it didn't for the one
patch I asked about.  The other two commits you've highlighted here are
lacking any sort of stable tag, so you'd have to pipe up here about them.

The patches were not initially a bug fix per se, so I didn't cc stable.  It was only later that I got reports of the patches fixing issues for some people. Normally I add the stable cc if the patch is a bug fix.

quoted

I went ahead and tried the cherry-pick myself on top of 3.6.9, in the
order you specified above.  The 62444b7462a has a trivial conflict coming
back.  I've attached an mbox with these three patches.  If you want to
give them a glance over and OK them, that would be great.

They look good to me.  Thanks!

Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>

Thanks Alex.

We've had a couple of users successfully test a kernel with these 3
patches applied for rhbz 855275.

Greg, is the mbox enough or would you like me to send them separately
to the list?

No need, I've used the mbox's patches, thanks.

greg k-h