On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:04 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/13/2014 05:32 AM, Luis Henriques wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 09:03:39PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> 26bef1318adc1b3a530ecc807ef99346db2aa8b0 should have been tagged for >>> stable, but it wasn't. The bug in question dates back to ancient times; >>> I expect it should apply without problems to any still supported tree. >>> >> >> Thank you, I'm queuing it for the 3.5 and 3.11 kernels. >> > > Incidentally, is there any reasons your patchsets/trees are: > > a) not hosted on kernel.org, > b) uses a 3.x.y.z convention instead of 3.x.y? > > It seems like completely needless fragmentation, especially since as far > as I can tell, you are always putting things at the end of the > "upstream" stable series (i.e. you don't end up with both 3.5.9.1 and > 3.5.10). I asked Luis about this a while ago and he said he'd be happy to via Greg's tree: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1604908/focus=1605218 Greg never replied (possibly because he wasn't on CC but I don't remember). josh -- 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