Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757301Ab1BPIar (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:30:47 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:41256 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751816Ab1BPIap (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:30:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:30:25 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Dan Carpenter , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, Dhaval Giani , stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Kay Sievers Subject: Re: [114/115] sched: Remove some dead code Message-ID: <20110216083025.GB16529@elte.hu> References: <20110216014741.GA24678@kroah.com> <20110216014705.654816731@clark.kroah.org> <20110216073701.GS4384@bicker> <1297843004.8874.1.camel@marge.simson.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1297843004.8874.1.camel@marge.simson.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1694 Lines: 45 * Mike Galbraith 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 > > > > > > commit 618765801ebc271fe0ba3eca99fcfd62a1f786e1 upstream. > > > > > > This was left over from "7c9414385e sched: Remove USER_SCHED" > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > > > > 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/