[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080229212014.GJ27212@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:20:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, roland@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64 ia32 syscall restart fix
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I believe the -stable guys have a bot which trolls the mainline
> commits mailing list for "cc:.*stable@...nel.org". So anybody
> anywhere in the patch delivery chain can append "Cc:
> <stable@...nel.org>" and things should get appropriate consideration.
ok, didnt know about that.
> The place where I suspect there is a lot of lossage is people simply
> not thinking about whether a fix should be backported. I'm forever
> fussing about that for the patches I handle (and I still miss some)
> but I have a suspicion that not all tree-owners do this fully.
we watch out for this, but still, about 50% of the cases, the
realization "this should be backported" comes later on. Often because
fixes get applied with low latency, and testers lag in realizing that
some particular -stable problem is fixed by a -git fix. Sometimes people
do bisection in search of backportable fixes - that too has a lag.
so the more formal:
Backport-suggested-by: commit-id, person
entry would solve both cases. Also, a commit entry in -stable:
Backported-from: commit-id
would finish the transaction. [ But this is clearly something that the
-stable folks have to request - it wont help much if we start doing it
but the -stable folks ignore the entries :-) ]
Ingo
--
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