[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:0.050 / U:3.228 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site