[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061012165128.GC21149@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:51:28 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>, torvalds@...l.org,
akpm@...l.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [stable] [patch 00/67] 2.6.18-stable review
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:35:22AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 08:42:44PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:03:10PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > And yes, we realize that this is a large number of patches, sorry...
> >
> > I number of these patches were cleanups, such as removing code betewen
> > #if 0, removing header files from being exported, etc. Not bad
> > things, but I wouldn't have thought it would have met the criteria for
> > being added to -stable. Are you intentionally relaxing the criteria?
>
> The header file stuff was intentionally added, as it is good to have the
> header files exported properly. Those were a large number of these
> patches.
Indeed. I see this as just 'finishing the job' rather than fixing something
that's busted though. That said, I was also carrying these in what will
be our 2.6.18 based update kernel for FC5 (and what will be FC6) for the
same reasons.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists