On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > ok, Shannon will send you a list of commit IDs and I'll re-send the backported patch with a big fat comment in the commit text. >> 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. > Will do for the future, thanks. -Christoffer -- 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