Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:46:09 +0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: properly fix missing CONFIG_FW_LOADER
 configurations
Message-ID: <20130306004609.GB28448@kroah.com>
References: <1362511248.16460.113.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
 <20130305215408.GD10965@kroah.com>
 <1362522169.16460.151.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1362522169.16460.151.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1187
Lines: 31

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:22:49PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 05:54 +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
> > stable kernel tree.  Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
> > for how to do this properly.
> 
> 0) Actually I just copied the addresses included in commit
> e121aefa7d9f10eee5cf26ed47129237a05d940b upstream without really
> thinking.
> 
> 1) But actually thinking about this: that upstream commit did end up in
> the (longterm) v3.4.y series. And my patch is also relevant for the
> v3.8.y series.

As that patch was in the 3.5-rc7 release, how can it be relevant for
3.8, or anything greater than 3.5 at all?

> Can't this patch, that fixes an obviously bogus commit,
> which was important enough for stable, be itself submitted with
> CC:stable?

How can you expect me to apply something that is already in the tree?  :)

thanks,

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