On Sat, 20 Dec 2014, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Ok, I agree that it is subjective how serious it is... > > > > Just to remind that patch fixing problem described in > > > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05922.ht > > > > ml > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05924.h > > > > tml > > > > > > I don't have any objection to sending this back to stable. > > > Stable is for fixing REAL bugs, as opposed to theorhetical > > > races, etc. This is a "real" bug. > > > > > > As to not chaning behavior, if it's OK for mainline, it's OK > > > for stable. At least that is my understanding of it. Folks > > > are free to verify with Greg if they disagree. > > > > Darren, so how you decided? Now when patches are in linus tree, > > are you going to send them to stable tree? > > Please don't. -stable is for serious mainline bugs people are actually > hitting. Null pointer dereference counts, if people actually hit > it. This is more behaviour change, and yes, the new behaviour is > better, but it is really different class. Sometimes the old behavior is something that is a major pain for users and userspace. In that case, where the new behavior fixes really annoying usecase bugs, the fix belongs in -stable IMHO. Broken behavior hits, by definition, every user of the feature after all. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
