| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1362556402.16460.158.camel@x61.thuisdomein> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:53:22 +0100 From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: properly fix missing CONFIG_FW_LOADER configurations On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 08:46 +0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:22:49PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > > 1) But actually thinking about this: that upstream commit did end up in > > the (longterm) v3.4.y series. And my patch is also relevant for the > > v3.8.y series. > > As that patch was in the 3.5-rc7 release, how can it be relevant for > 3.8, or anything greater than 3.5 at all? I seem to have confused you. My patch fixes a bug caused by a commit that shipped in final release v3.5 (and is also part the 3.4.y series, because that commit got added to that stable series). > > Can't this patch, that fixes an obviously bogus commit, > > which was important enough for stable, be itself submitted with > > CC:stable? > > How can you expect me to apply something that is already in the tree? :) It's not (yet) in the tree but fixes something that is in the tree. Paul Bolle -- 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