On 21/02/14 15:21, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:35:48AM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 20/02/14 20:08, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 3.13-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.
>>
>> This patch is mostly a rename. The proper diffstat looks like:
>>
>> include/uapi/xen/Kbuild | 2 ++
>> include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntalloc.h | 0
>> include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntdev.h | 0
>> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> rename include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntalloc.h (100%)
>> rename include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntdev.h (100%)
>>
>> It avoids distro packagers etc. from having to hack their packages to
>> install these headers.
>
> But how does this fit the stable kernel rules? It's something that has
> always been "broken", right? It's not a regression from what I can
> tell.
There's nothing in the stable_kernel_rules.txt about accepting only
regression fixes. Nor has this historically been the case.
The gnttab/gntalloc devices are effectively unusuable without their
corresponding headers so I considered this sufficient to meet the 'some
"oh, that's not good" issue' requirement.
David
--
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