Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932475AbWHLQYu (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:24:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932480AbWHLQYu (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:24:50 -0400 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:38663 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932475AbWHLQYt (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:24:49 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:24:47 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Stefan Richter Cc: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, Pavel Machek , Josh Boyer , Greg KH , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Adrian Bunk is now taking over the 2.6.16-stable branch Message-ID: <20060812162447.GE5084@stusta.de> References: <200608091749_MC3-1-C796-5E8D@compuserve.com> <20060809220048.GE3691@stusta.de> <44DB1F19.8000504@s5r6.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44DB1F19.8000504@s5r6.in-berlin.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2370 Lines: 66 On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:57:13PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > ... > > I'm currently > > going through all 2.6.17.7 and 2.6.17.8 patches looking for patches I > > should apply. > > Suggested updates for drivers/ieee1394/: > > (from 2.6.17.2) > Fix broken suspend/resume in ohci1394 > should be applicable as-is. This does not add full suspend/resume > functionality to ohci1394 but it fixes fatal side effects on other > on-board hardware after resume. > > (from 2.6.17.8) > ieee1394: sbp2: enable auto spin-up for Maxtor disks > doesn't apply to 2.6.16 as-is. > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=183011#c6 has an adapted > version. I will mail it to you with proper description and signed-off-by > later today. While I am at it, I will resend that ohci1394 patch too. Thanks, I've applied them both. > I have a related question about your plans with Linux 2.6.16.yy. > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt says: > > - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things > marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real > security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, > something critical. > > I plan to submit a patch of the kind "fix recognition of a quirky > device" for 2.6.18. That patch does not fix an oops, hang, data > corruption, or security hole. (The patch will fulfill all other criteria > from stable_kernel_rules.) Do you consider "can't use that shiny device > under Linux" as "oh, that's not good" in the context of Linux 2.6.16.yy? >... If the device doesn't work, it's an "oh, that's not good" issue. ;-) More seriously: I consider stable_kernel_rules.txt as a more formal description of "avoid regressions". If the patch is tested, unlikely to break anything and included in Linus' tree it's a candidate for 2.6.16. > Stefan Richter cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/