On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:05:37 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> You know sta...@kernel.org? Use it.
Yes, I contacted sta...@kernel.org regarding bug number 550898. But
this situation is a little bit different. With 550898, IBM wrote
a single git commit to fix a single bug. Asking for that commit to
be back-ported was a routine matter. But for bug number 607416 it appears
that they didn't do it that way. Thanks to the information provided by
Jonathan Nieder, I was able to find the commit for this bug. It is
listed below:
-----
commit f85cca6b25971a09efbe4c6a3ae405d40c8f86da
Merge: 6f576d5 dd30ac3
Author: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 14:55:49 2011 -0800
Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://git390.marist.edu/pub/scm/linux-2.6
* 'for-linus' of git://git390.marist.edu/pub/scm/linux-2.6:
[S390] net: provide architecture specific NET_SKB_PAD
[S390] atomic: use inline asm
[S390] correct ipl parameter block safe guard
[S390] atomic: use ACCESS_ONCE() for atomic_read()
[S390] dasd: correct device table
-----
As far as I can tell, only the last line is applicable to this bug.
[S390] dasd: correct device table
In other words, instead of producing a single fix for a single bug,
they threw the fix in with several other miscellaneous fixes and enhancements.
I wish IBM hadn't done it that way, but they did. Therefore, I am unsure
as to how to proceed. Do I ask sta...@kernel.org to port the whole commit?
(It may have dependencies on previous commits and get complicated rather
quickly.) Or do I ask them to cherry pick that one-line change in
drivers/s390/block/dasd_eckd.c? I could use some advice here.
--
.''`. Stephen Powell
: :' :
`. `'`
`-
--
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/345969826.117662.1303525222133.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
