Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:47:34 -0400 | From | Josh Boyer <> | Subject | Re: [stable] [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review |
| |
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:33:48 -0700 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 06:33:39AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:53:45 -0700 > > Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:01:26PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:33:34AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > >This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.27.3 release. > > > > >There are 17 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > > > >to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > > > >let us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and > > > > >wants to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it. > > > > > > > > > >These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the > > > > >Cc: line. If you wish to be a reviewer, please email stable@kernel.org > > > > >to add your name to the list. If you want to be off the reviewer list, > > > > >also email us. > > > > > > > > > >Responses should be made by Wed, October 22, 2008 19:00:00 UTC. > > > > >Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > OK, I realize I'm late. Apologies in advance for that. > > > > > > > > I don't see how patches 3, 16, and 17 really fit into the "stable" > > > > rules. None of them: > > > > > > > > "... fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things > > > > marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real > > > > security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, > > > > something critical." > > > > > > > > So, are we being a bit more lax on the requirements for the > > > > -stable kernels and I missed the memo, or? > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > Patch 3: > > > Driver core: Fix cleanup in device_create_vargs(). > > > solves a memory leak on an error path that has every opportunity to > > > happen in the driver core. Do you think this is not a real bug? > > > > Grr.. Typo on my part. Patch 4 is the one I originally meant: > > "Driver Core: Clarify device cleanup." It changes nothing but > > comments. I don't think it's a big deal at all, but are documentation > > changes also allowed now? > > It was a documentation change, fixing the information for a core API > call to be correct and match what the code really does. > > It also carried no risk of a regression, and as such, I decided to take > it. If you note, we have also taken other patches that fix up > documentation issues like this in the past, so it was not the first > time. > > Was this that big of a deal?
No. I said that already. I'm just trying to clarify what the expectations are for -stable because when it first started stuff liek that wasn't taken. Also, it seems nobody has updated the documentation file as -stable has evolved. I'd be more than happy to correct that, but I just need to get a feel for where -stable is at before I can do that.
Not trying to be a stick in the mud, just trying to help. If you'd rather I don't, that's fine too.
josh
| |