On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:21:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 09/05/2014 03:45 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > >> On 08/10/2014 09:54 AM, Peter Kieser wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2014-08-05 9:58 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>> On 08/04/2014 10:33 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > >>>>> Hey Jens, here's the pull request for 3.17 - typically late, but lots of tasty > >>>>> fixes in this one :) > >>>> Normally I'd say no, but since it's basically just fixes, I guess we can > >>>> pull it in. But generally, it has to be in my hands a week before this, > >>>> so it can simmer a bit in for-next before going in... > >>>> > >>> Are these fixes going to be backported to 3.10 or other stable releases? > >>> > >> > >> Could you please answer this question ? > >> > >> If you don't want to maintain bcache for stable kernels (I can > >> understand that), can you mark it at least as unstable/experimental > >> stuff since it really is ? > > > > WTF? > > > > Just because a maintainer/developer doesn't want to do anything for the > > stable kernel releases does _NOT_ mean the code is > > "unstable/expreimental" at all. > > That's not what he is saying at all. The code IS unstable in 3.10. And > the fact that nothing goes to stable for bcache, the situation wasn't > likely to change for 3.10. Nobody is saying "Oh nothing goes to stable, > lets mark it experimental". Sorry, but with only the context above which is what I was sent, you can see how I can be confused here... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
