Message-ID: <1362556402.16460.158.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: properly fix missing CONFIG_FW_LOADER
 configurations
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:53:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20130306004609.GB28448@kroah.com>
References: <1362511248.16460.113.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
	 <20130305215408.GD10965@kroah.com>
	 <1362522169.16460.151.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
	 <20130306004609.GB28448@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1144
Lines: 29

On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 08:46 +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:22:49PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > 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?

I seem to have confused you. My patch fixes a bug caused by a commit
that shipped in final release v3.5 (and is also part the 3.4.y series,
because that commit got added to that stable series).

> > 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?  :)

It's not (yet) in the tree but fixes something that is in the tree. 


Paul Bolle

--
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/