On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:54:01AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:04:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On 02/25/2014 10:51 AM, Luís Henriques wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 04:13:24PM +0800, Weng Meiling wrote:
> >> >>> Hi Luis and Ingo,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 723478c8a471403c53cf144999701f6e0c4bbd11
> >> >>> perf: Enforce 1 as lower limit for perf_event_max_sample_rate
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please queue this for 3.11.x and 3.12.x. It fixes a divide-by-zero bug.
> >> >>> The bug can be triggiered by writing 0 to /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_max_sample_rate,
> >> >>> which was introduced by 14c63f17b1fde5a575a28e96547a22b451c71fb5 ("perf: Drop sample
> >> >>> rate when sampling is too slow").
> >> >
> >> >> Thank you Weng, I'll queue it for the 3.11 kernel. I'm adding Greg to the
> >> >> CC list, as he's the 3.12 maintainer.
> >> >
> >> > Not anymore -- I am :).
> >>
> >> Er... when/where did that happen? I have no objections at all, but I
> >> do find it surprising. Did I miss an announcement somewhere?
> >
> > Where should I announce it? It seems like when this has happened in the
> > past, no one noticed it :)
>
> In the release email of the final release you do? "After this
> release, Jiri is taking over this stable tree. Thanks to Jiri for
> stepping in!" etc etc
Yes, you are right, I should have said something then, I'll go do that
after breakfast.
> Really though, I find it odd this happened with no discussion.
I mentioned it in my stable kernel talk at the last kernel summit, that
someone might be taking this kernel over, but I wasn't sure at the time,
so I didn't mention names.
> You
> say that people volunteer to support stable releases all the time and
> you don't have time to keep up with what everyone is doing. Canonical
> has done numerous public releases following the same rules you use for
> the trees they maintain, but you don't consider them "stable" enough
> to be a stable tree or something. Now we have a new maintainer that
> you apparently decided was good enough to support an existing stable
> tree and didn't even tell anyone. If I wanted to step in and maintain
> 3.13.y when you're tired of it, what would I need to do to be able to
> do that? The lack of communication is just surprising and a little
> confusing.
Sorry, this past week for me has been really busy with other things, I
should have announced it better (i.e. done something...)
And if you want to maintain 3.13.y, talk to me and we can have that
conversation, which is how all of the previous stable maintainers
happened.
greg k-h
--
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