[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree
    Greg KH wrote:
    > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    >>An example that doesn't fit:
    >>A patch of me to remove an unused function was accepted into 2.6.11 .
    >>Today, someone mailed that there's an external GPL'ed module that uses
    >>this function.
    >>A patch to re-add this function as it was in 2.6.10 does not fulfill
    >>your criteria, but it is a low-risk way to fix a regression compared to
    >>2.6.10 .
    > Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with adding this kind of fix. Do others
    > disagree?

    Depends. Is Linus going to push it back into his tree? If it's just
    something like the remap_page_range going away, fix the the module
    instead, I'd say.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.021 / U:20.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site