Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:39:02 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value |
| |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:31:41PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable > > releases. > > The patch in question hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, but it's queued up > in Stephen Rothwell's for-next tree. As I understand it, Andrew's > tree gets fed into that on a somewhat regular basis, and Andrew took > my four patches (plus a patchcheck fixup he committed) already. So, I > pulled Stephen's for-next, put my patches plus the patchcheck fix on > top, then wrote a fixup patch that fixes what I saw as being wrong in > the patch in question. > > > Ok, care to get the patch into Linus's tree and then I can take it > > into > > stable? > > I made a new patch that fixes the patch I NAKed. My entire patch set > can be applied on top of his now (I was wrong about them conflicting, > I think there was just enough space for the context not to overlap in > a way that would conflict as I thought it would). So, since the > change isn't life threatening or anything, and can be easily fixed up, > I'll withdraw my NAK and just submit the additional patch to correct > it once I get home and have access to a mail program that does > something besides attachments or mangled text as the only patch > sending options. > > Now, the question of whether or not you want a patch in -stable that > hasn't hit Linus' tree yet is up to you...
Sorry, I can't do that, it's against the rules for -stable (see Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt).
Just get your patch into Linus's tree soon, and all should be good, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |