On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:13:52PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:58:43PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >> Stephen, once it hits mainline, would 6225da481597 be a candidate for > >> the current-maintained stable trees >= 2.6.36, or does it have any > >> prerequisites or followups that should go with it? > > > > <formletter> > > > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the > > stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt > > for how to do this properly. > > I thought step 1 in the right way was for the patch to hit mainline. :)
Yes it is, and until that happens, why are you emailing sta...@vger.kernel.org about this? There's nothing I can do about it at this point in time, except have it cause me extra work :( > The patch: > > - is obviously correct and tested against 3.1.y > - is very short > - fixes only one thing > - fixes a real bug that bothered people (boot failure) > - also removes the deprecated IRQF_DISABLED flag; I'd be happy to undo > that part and get another round of testing before sending it to you > - would obviously follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules when > sending it to you > - does *not* yet have an analog in linus's tree. BTW, I'm not sure > why this isn't in Jens's for-linus branch. That last one is the stickler, please work on that, without that, there's nothing I can do here. greg k-h -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111215235255.ga21...@kroah.com