Hi Greg,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree.
>> >
>> > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
>> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
>>
>> s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g
>>
>> Time to update the scripts? ;-)
>
> Ah, yes, thanks, will go do that now.
>
>> > 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 don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error.
>
> It does on 4.9? Not according to the patch itself:
>
> Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support")
>
> $ git describe --contains f438b9da
> v4.10-rc1~148^2~367^2~6^2
>
> So why should this be applied to 4.9?
Right (disclaimer: I didn't add a fixes tag), you confused me with the stable
kernel rules question.
So not on v4.9, until someone tries to sneak f438b9da into LTSI ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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