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  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:	Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:07:47 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <>
To:	Jay Cliburn <>
CC:	David Miller <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch 00/50] -stable review

Jay Cliburn wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <> wrote:
>> If you ask me in the future about the status of a -stable
>> patch from the networking, I'll let you know exactly what
>> is happening to that patch wrt. stable.  I rarely forget
>> to submit an appropriate patch, and when I do forget you
>> merely have to let me know (rather than submitting it
>> to -stable directly, please don't do that) so that I can
>> fit it in with what I plan to submit to -stable already.
> As a netdev driver maintainer, I've been following this workflow for
> patches that need to go to -stable:
> 1.  I submit a mainline patch to Jeff Garzik.
> 2.  Jeff submits to David.
> 3.  David submits to Linus.
> 4.  Linus merges patch into mainline.
> 5.  I extract mainline commit ID.
> 6.  I apply and test patch against appropriate 2.6.x.y git tree.
> 7.  I submit patch directly to -stable.
> David's admonition tells me I'm doing it wrong, and that I should
> submit the stable patch to Jeff as well.  Am I right?

I usually encourage a more-parallel process where you simply email with the upstream commit id of the change(s) in question.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists