On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:48:06PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:20:25AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:21:51AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:39:44PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > > Ping? > > > > > > Large series of backports usually take me a while to get to as they are > > > outside of my "normal" workflow. Usually they take a few months to get > > > into the tree, waiting for a "slack time". I still have a number of > > > other series that have yet to be merged that were sent a long time > > > before yours. Please be patient. > > > > Actually, why aren't these being marked for -stable in the first place? > > It's mostly my fault for not recognizing that and because I knew many of > these wouldn't apply cleanly to stable trees, I didn't add them to > -stable. That was probably a mistake on my part, apologies. > > > Going back and adding them "by hand" like this is a big pain, especially > > when I have to hand-verify each git commit id, as the first one I looked > > at is incorrect and now I don't trust any of them in the series. > > You should be able to trust all of them (Shannon, speak up if that's not > true). This was the *only* one that I modified heavily. > > > > > Please work with the "normal" stable kernel workflow and mark the > > patches properly so that you don't have to do this extra work, and I > > don't either. > > Yes, that is indeed the intention. It has been intense lately and > cc'ing -stable was under-prioritized. As part of realizing we need to > be better at this, I went back and tried to rectify our mistakes. > Again, apologies. > > > > > Right now I'm going to just dump this whole series from my queue. > > Please just give me a series of git commit ids that should be applied to > > the 3.14-stable kernel tree, and in what order they should be applied > > in. If any need to be backported differently, please send those as a > > separate series, and I will get to them at a different time, as that is > > a lot more work having to hand-verify everything. > > > Really? I would think you would prefer this series given the above > info. If you still prefer a list of commit IDs, then we'll provide > those instead. My scripts handle a git commit id directly, it's trivial for me to take that. If I have to deal with an email, I have to manually compare it to the git commit id, see why it's different, write an angry email complaining about the differences, etc. :) Remember, we work using quilt patch series, not git patches for the stable stuff, so I can't take a pull request here, sorry. > We tried to make things easier for you guys, not the other way around. Then tag things in the original patches please, that would be the easiest thing for everyone involved. thanks, 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