On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:32:07AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On 7/12/2013 2:29 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >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? > > Can you guarantee that it won't cause a build failure to happen with > a future GCC or a different compiler? Nope, and if it does, I'll be glad to apply it then :) thanks, 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