Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ACPI / dock: Actually define acpi_dock_init() as void" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 3.10-stable tree?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On 7/12/2013 1:30 AM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 3.10-stable tree.
> >
> >I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> >Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
> >
> >I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to
> ><stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and let me know why this patch should be
> >applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> >seen again.
> 
> Well, you may not agree with that obviously, but I consider cases
> when the function header declared in a header file doesn't match the
> definition of that function as serious breakage. Normally, it would
> cause a build failure to happen and the fact that it incidentally
> doesn't cause it for reasons not entirely clear to me doesn't really
> matter.

If it doesn't cause a build failure, or any other "user-visable"
problem, it really shouldn't be a stable patch, right?

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]