Re: [114/115] sched: Remove some dead code

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 10:37 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> > > 
> > > ------------------
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > commit 618765801ebc271fe0ba3eca99fcfd62a1f786e1 upstream.
> > > 
> > > This was left over from "7c9414385e sched: Remove USER_SCHED"
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > This is just a cleanup patch.  It doesn't really warrant backporting.
> 
> There's no reason to leave the dirt lying about though.

That's not the threshold for -stable backporting though.

A patch is eligible for -stable if and only if it's eligible for sending it to Linus 
via tip:sched/urgent as well: i.e. important bugfix or fresh regression.

Now, a cleanup patch might still be eligible to be sent to Linus if for some reason 
it's absolutely required for a fix - but in general we do not backport them.

The risk to -stable is obvious: instead of having a well-known .32 scheduler we have 
this morphing code that no-one has really tested in that form.

So while i dont mind the series you sent, please lets be *much* more careful with 
-stable backports in the future. Rule #1: if you ever have to ask yourself whether a 
patch is -stable eligible it probably isnt.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/