Hi Ian, On Sat, Aug 27 2011, Ian Molton wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 08:55 -0400, Chris Ball wrote: >> > Good for 3.1, do we also push such "harmless" compiler warning fixes >> > to stable? >> > >> > Acked-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> >> >> Pushed for 3.1, thanks. I don't think this is appropriate for stable. > > Why on earth not? its obviously correct... Because the rules for stable@ consist of more than the patch being obviously correct. You seem to have chosen one stable@ rule that this patch meets, and ignored the other nine which it mostly does not meet: Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a problem..." type thing). - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical. - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace cleanups, etc). Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
