Re: [stable] to something appropriate (was Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans)

[Chris Wright]

* Jeff Garzik (jeff@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Yeah, a new-id patch is a pretty critical bugfix if you happen to have that
> > hardware.  I'll get all these into 2.6.22 by whatever means and will adopt
> > your advice in future.
> > 
> > Probably these should go into -stable too, but I don't know what
> > Greg&Chris's position is on new device IDs.
> 
> I don't know either.  But a one-line ID patch is pretty painless 
> considering the gain, so I would vote for stable@xxxxxxxxxx taking such 
> patches.
> 
> If it's more than one line added per ID though, NAK for -stable, IMO...

Well, there's 2 issues here.  1) the patch in question is not -stable
material (the patch name is a bit misleading).  2) you can add them
runtime in userspace (and for pcmcia too after patch in question is
applied), so we've historically avoided that kind of patch for -stable.

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/