On 01/24/2014 08:48 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:27:05AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/23/2014 01:17 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just wanted to send out a few timekeeping fixes that were merged
>>>>> in 3.14 which are appropriate for -stable.
>>>> No, they are not appropriate at all.
>>>>
>>>>> This queue backports the following fixes:
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> f55c07607a38f84b5c7e6066ee1cfe433fa5643c timekeeping: Fix lost updates to tai adjustment
>>>>> 5258d3f25c76f6ab86e9333abf97a55a877d3870 timekeeping: Fix potential lost pv notification of time change
>>>>> 6fdda9a9c5db367130cf32df5d6618d08b89f46a timekeeping: Avoid possible deadlock from clock_was_set_delayed
>>>>> 04005f6011e3b504cd4d791d9769f7cb9a3b2eae timekeeping: Fix CLOCK_TAI timer/nanosleep delays
>>>>> 330a1617b0a6268d427aa5922c94d082b1d3e96d timekeeping: Fix missing timekeeping_update in suspend path
>>>>> d5a1c7e3fc38d9c7d629e1e47f32f863acbdec3d rtc-cmos: Add an alarm disable quirk
>>>> These patches should have had Cc: stable in them and should have gone
>>>> through timers/urgent!
>>> They did have Cc: stable in them.
>> But they did not go through timers/urgent, did they?
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I'd argue these were non-urgent fixes that should still be
>>> backported to -stable.
>> No such thing exists really. Linus argued this repeatedly: if you
>> think it's not urgent enough for current -git then it's doubly not
>> urgent enough for -stable!
> That's not always true, some maintainers {cough SCSI} like to see
> patches "bake" in Linus's tree for a few days/weeks/months before having
> the -stable tree take them. And that's fine, I have no objection to
> that.
Yep. This is what I guess I'm trying to do. Sending the patches early
was just trying to get them off my plate so I can go do other things.
There's no urgent need to get them into 3.13.1 or anything. Sorry for
causing confusion here.
> Also, device ids and quirk table updates aren't usually urgent enough
> for current, but can come into -stable just fine with a bit of delay.
>
>> The fact that Greg is a soft hearted maintainer while Linus pushes
>> back strongly, in Finnish if needed, does not make this approach
>> right.
> Yeah, I'm too nice, sorry, I'll try to be meaner, and have been
> lately, John and I ended up having a (somehow private) email thread
> about this patch series already as to how to properly make it so that it
> could be mergable.
Yea, sorry that went private. I didn't intend for that, but was replying
on my phone and forgot to dig into the menu for reply-all.
thanks
-john
--
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