On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not entirely clear o
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not entirely clear o
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 12:19:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different
> > > patch for -stable than what w
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different
> > patch for -stable than what we have upstream.
>
> It's not all that common, but it certainly ha
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different
> patch for -stable than what we have upstream.
It's not all that common, but it certainly happens.
It's fine, as long as it mentions the commits that fix it upstream.
Greg, Linus,
I'm not entirely clear on how acceptable it is to propose a different
patch for -stable than what we have upstream.
The below Changelog explain, but in short, we should either backport 4
rather invasive patches to .13-stable and .14-stable or do the small
patch provided.
The 4 patch
6 matches
Mail list logo
