On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 07:30 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Kamal, > > [ removed Don Bailey from the CC who's certainly not interested in this ] > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 02:03:08PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote: > > 3.13.11.9 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> > > > > commit 72cf90124e87d975d0b2114d930808c58b4c05e4 upstream. > > (...) Hi Willy- Thanks very much for reviewing this. > This one (and the accompanying revert) are still not present in more > recent stable kernels, so I find it surprizing that you're proposing > to integrate them now. I can hold out those lzo fixes until the next 3.13-stable if you prefer. But fwiw... > If someone upgrades from 3.13.11.9 to 3.14.21 > or 3.16.5, they'd expect to keep all fixes but will lose this one, so > this is a bit confusing. I think those sorts of scheduling mismatches and discrepancies between stable versions are pretty common. Examples: The top 11 commits in v3.12.30 have not yet been applied[0] to any of the newer stable branches; Many of the commits in v3.10.57 have not yet been applied[1] to linux-3.12.y but have been released in other newer stables. > Is there any reason you're not tracking fixes > from more recent versions like Jiri, Li, Ben and I are doing ? We (the Canonical stable maintainers) have always tracked the "cc: stable" fixes directly from mainline, not from the more-recent-version branches. Given the examples above, it seems that the kernel.org maintainers are doing that too, yes? -Kamal [0] linux-3.12.y 1d08848..99ed1bd (part of the big mm patch set) [1] linux-3.10.y 07d209b..7dd3111 (various "cc: stable" patches) -- 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