On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:05:22PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:02:59AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > This patch breaks the build on the .36-stable tree. > > > > I'm getting tired of the problems in the patches you are submitting for > > the stable tree, _please_ be more careful in the future, or I'm just > > going to start ignoring them all and require you to submit them to me > > separately, after I know you have actually tested and built them :( > > Has this one not arrived via the Cc: [email protected] footer in the patch > as commited to mainline rather than by direct submission?
This one came to me by the cc: stable... marking. > Personally I thought that the intent of this field in a commit was to > indicate that this fix is suitable for stable consideration and for > which release (or all), not necessarily that this exact patch would > apply to all of those older releases. Exactly. But, this patch does not apply at all to the .36 stable kernel, so what should I be expected to do with it? > Cirtainly only one version of the patch can arrive via that mechanism. > If something different should have been done then perhaps we need some > clarification on the submission rules to indicate how to represent > this situation. Again, read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. And mark patches that ACTUALLY WORK in a stable kernel tree, otherwise it's a huge of waste of time on my part, which makes me grumpy. If you know that these patches will not work in an older kernel, then DON'T MARK THEM, but send them to [email protected] after they go to Linus, with the proper information (git commit id, backport information, etc.) and I will be glad to apply them. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
