* Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 10:37 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let
> > > us know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > commit 618765801ebc271fe0ba3eca99fcfd62a1f786e1 upstream.
> > >
> > > This was left over from "7c9414385e sched: Remove USER_SCHED"
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> >
> > This is just a cleanup patch. It doesn't really warrant backporting.
>
> There's no reason to leave the dirt lying about though.
That's not the threshold for -stable backporting though.
A patch is eligible for -stable if and only if it's eligible for sending it to
Linus
via tip:sched/urgent as well: i.e. important bugfix or fresh regression.
Now, a cleanup patch might still be eligible to be sent to Linus if for some
reason
it's absolutely required for a fix - but in general we do not backport them.
The risk to -stable is obvious: instead of having a well-known .32 scheduler we
have
this morphing code that no-one has really tested in that form.
So while i dont mind the series you sent, please lets be *much* more careful
with
-stable backports in the future. Rule #1: if you ever have to ask yourself
whether a
patch is -stable eligible it probably isnt.
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
