Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:16:49 -0800 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3.13 000/120] 3.13.3-stable review |
| |
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:49:10AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 02/11/2014 12:04 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >Some -stable releases spring out from my build system bright and shiny > >and ready to go. Not so with these releases. Maybe it's the horrid > >weather that was happening during the creation of these kernels, or > >something else, but whatever it was, they came into this world > >screaming, kicking, killing build servers left-and-right, and breaking > >the build every other patch. Some developers decided to get into the > >act, constantly pushing the boundaries of what is an acceptable -stable > >patch, and trying to skirt the rules of upstream patches first numerous > >times, making me even grumpier than normal, "forcing" me to relax and > >take in an afternoon playing of the Lego movie... > > > >Test these out well, they have barely survived my systems, and I don't > >trust them in the slightest to not eat your disks, reap your tasks, and > >run away laughing as your CPU turns into a space heater. > > > >You have been warned. > > > >----------------- > > > > Worked fine on all my test systems. Compile tests and boot tests passed. No > dmesg regressions: emerg, crit, alert, err are clean. No regressions in > warn.
Great, thanks for testing all 4 of these, I feel better about them now.
greg k-h
| |