On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:10:29PM -0400, Joe Korty wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:50:52PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > A: Top-posting. > > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > > > A: No. > > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > > > > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:16:47AM -0400, Joe Korty wrote: > > > Hi Greg, > > > This patch is not yet in 4.4. > > > > What patch is that? I can't find a git commit id here at all :( > > > > > It is in 4.9 and upstream. No one has submitted it to you before this > > > email. I only discovered the need for it because lockdep complains > > > when it is missing. I do not know how it was missed; perhaps there is > > > a reason rather than it being missed by accident. Others in the know > > > can comment if they like. > > > > You need to say what you want to have happen for a stable patch, you did > > read Documenation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, right? > > > > still confused, > > > > greg k-h > > > Hi Greg, > The patch is one that has already been backported into 4.9, > and as such I assumed it was already in a format acceptable > for submission. > > 4.4 is the only additional branch that needs this patch, > and there it is needed only because in 4.4.28 two other > mpt3sas patches had been backported. Those two patches > introduced the lock dependency problem that this, the > third patch, fixes. > > In summary, either all three patches should be backported, > or none should be backported. Porting just two is wrong. What patches? Please start over, resend the email in a format that can be understand as to what commits you want added to what stable kernel tree. As it is, I still have no clue... greg k-h