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]

Date:	Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:52:11 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken
	on SGI UV

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 01:38:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do we track people dong this at all? I wonder how many patches in
> > > linux-next have cc: stable in them but haven't been submitted to
> > > Linus,
> > 
> > The other side of that coin is to wonder how many patches get marked
> > as "stable" when they definitely shouldn't be.
> > 
> > I know that's a non-empty set. Too many developers think that the
> > thing they fix is so important that it needs to be backported. And it
> > doesn't help that Greg is sometimes over-eager to take things without
> > them being even in my tree long enough to get much testing.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, I know of at least one regression fix that is waiting in linux-next
> for the upcoming merge window and it most likely is tagged as -stable material.

Which one is it?

curious,

greg k-h
--
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/