On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Thanks.
>> 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.
Not everyone is at KS and lwn.net missed that point in the stable tree
recap. Maybe they didn't think anyone was crazy enough to actually
sign up ;).
>> 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...)
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
> 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.
I might do that. I'll have to see how some of the Fedora stuff plays
out in the next few weeks.
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