On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:00:14AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On 7/12/2013 2:53 AM, 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. > > > >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? :-) > > > > And by the way, stable_kernel_rules.txt doesn't say anything about > the Cc: <stable> tag in the commit logs. Perhaps needs updating? It's the second "-" option in the "Procedure" section of that file, right? -- 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