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