On 7/12/2013 3:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
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?
It is.
I was thinking about something different from what I wrote, though. I
meant it didn't say anything like "Don't add those signatures to fixes
that aren't serious enough or you'll receive nastygrams from Greg KH". :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Technology Poland sp. z o.o.
z siedziba w Gdansku
ul. Slowackiego 173
80-298 Gdansk
Sad Rejonowy Gdansk Polnoc w Gdansku,
VII Wydzial Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sadowego,
numer KRS 101882
NIP 957-07-52-316
Kapital zakladowy 200.000 zl
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
--
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