linux-kernel - Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken on SGI UV

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20101010105121.9ebb64aa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:51:21 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken on
 SGI UV

Hi Linus,

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:24:59 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Quite frankly, if somebody has something in "next" (and really meant
> for the _next_ merge window, not the current one) that is marked for
> stable, I think that shows uncommonly bad taste. And that, in turn,
> means that the "stable" tag is also very debatable. It clearly cannot
> be important enough to really be for stable if it's not even being
> aggressively pushed into the current -rc.

There are 22 trees that get merged into in linux-next that are "bug fixes
for the current release" trees ... that was the list I sent you after the
-rc7 announcement (most of which I think you have since merged.  In
fact, there are currently only 5 commits in those 22 trees that you have
not merged.

The other thing people do is to add such bug fixes to their -next trees
before asking you to take them.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped