linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcache changes for 3.17

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: <540AD288.5050602@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:23:20 +0200
From:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	Peter Kieser <peter@...ser.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache changes for 3.17

On 09/05/2014 11:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
>> On 08/10/2014 09:54 AM, Peter Kieser wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2014-08-05 9:58 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2014 10:33 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jens, here's the pull request for 3.17 - typically late, but lots of tasty
>>>>> fixes in this one :)
>>>> Normally I'd say no, but since it's basically just fixes, I guess we can
>>>> pull it in. But generally, it has to be in my hands a week before this,
>>>> so it can simmer a bit in for-next before going in...
>>>>
>>> Are these fixes going to be backported to 3.10 or other stable releases?
>>>
>>
>> Could you please answer this question ?
>>
>> If you don't want to maintain bcache for stable kernels (I can
>> understand that), can you mark it at least as unstable/experimental
>> stuff since it really is ?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Just because a maintainer/developer doesn't want to do anything for the
> stable kernel releases does _NOT_ mean the code is
> "unstable/expreimental" at all.
> 
> That's not how stable kernel releases work.  _IF_ a maintainer wants to
> / has the time to, they can mark patches for inclusion in stable kernel
> releases.  Given the huge list of patches that Jens just posted, I doubt
> that those are really something I would ever take for a stable kernel
> release.
> 
> Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for more details
> please.  And don't ask others to do backporting work for you, it's not
> ok, and is something that I have always said is never required, and is
> not going to be.
> 

wow, not sure why I deserve such anger...

Looks like you haven't understood me well and specially I *never* asked
others to do the backporting for me.

Please reread the thread, perhaps peaceful music can help too.

--
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/