On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:18:26AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Seriously, guys, pick up your act a bit and start talking between > > yourselvesi and tracking regressions and fixes so the burden of > > catching known reported and fixed problems with backports doesn't > > rely on the upstream developers noticing the problem when hundreds > > of patches for random stable kernels go past on lkml every week... > > We definitely do exchange quite a bit and I pick patches from 3.14 for > 3.10, but sometimes I can simply pick the original one for various > reasons (eg: I if had queued its upstream ID earlier). That's also why > the review process helps. I'm sincerely sorry that I failed on this one > and that you had to deal with it again, I'm going to fix it now. I've just checked, and this time I correctly picked the patches from 3.14, so much that I have the faulty one (this one) and its fix (patch 100/180). Admittedly I can merge them together so that if someone wants to pick it alone they're not left with a broken patch. Willy -- 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