On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:53:37AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On 7/12/2013 2:37 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >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 :) > > And will you remember about it? Because I won't. :-) > > And the same guys telling you how they have problems because there > are too many commits in -stable will have to fix it by themselves > and carry the fix. Good for them. And then Debian will dig out the fix and send it for inclusion, like they always do :) > This particular stuff is not what's causing the problems they're > seeing to happen, however, so I'm not really sure what you're trying > to achieve by pushing back this way. Surely some really important > stuff is going to be missing in -stable going forward, but I don't > work for a distro any more, so why should I care? :-) I'm trying to push back on the obvious "this really shouldn't be in -stable" patches. Each patch added takes time (my review time, others review time, etc.) so when people start adding "\n" additions to debug printk messages, that has the chance to soon swamp me with non-relevant patches. If you don't feel comfortable sending a patch to Linus after -rc4, I don't think it should be in the -stable trees. 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