Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.8-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. > > I believe it would only be useful if d86e64768859 was applied to stable > or ended up in a release. > > I'm not sure why it would have been applied to stable, since adding const > doesn't fix a bug. Correct. Commit d86e64768859 is in v4.9-rc1, but it's not in v4.8, so the stable tag was not actually needed. I missed that, sorry. -- Kalle Valo -- 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