[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180323164716.GA7794@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:47:16 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Sridhar Pitchai <Sridhar.Pitchai@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
Jake Oshins <jakeo@...rosoft.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]PCI: hv: fix PCI-BUS domainID corruption
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:41:02PM +0000, Sridhar Pitchai wrote:
> Please read the link I sent you in relation to email formatting.
>
> Then add your description above in a way that anyone not 100% familiar
> with hyperv can understand it - that's what the commit log is for.
>
> You are sending this patch to stable kernels, patch above has been in
> the kernel from v4.14. The patch you are fixing since v4.11, you ought
> to be careful since you do not want to have broken kernel versions owing
> to stable patches mismatches, that's why I asked and I will ask again,
> are you sure you won't trigger a regression by sending this fix to
> stable ?
>
> I assume the bond driver mechanism is now done and dusted.
>
> That is correct. I have sent a v4 version of the patch. I am sending this
> patch for stable kernel. We have tested and I am sure this should not trigger
> regression by sending this fix to stable.
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree. Please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.
</formletter>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists