Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751425Ab2JOIkR (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:40:17 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:47329 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750722Ab2JOIkO (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:40:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:40:11 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andreas Herrmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, powernow-k8: Remove usage of smp_processor_id() in preemptible code Message-ID: <20121015084011.GA5000@liondog.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andreas Herrmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org References: <20121009193844.GC7724@alberich> <20121012151841.GA4571@alberich> <27008283.MeT6T60WP8@vostro.rjw.lan> <1395148.DypXQr3MdC@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1395148.DypXQr3MdC@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1761 Lines: 48 On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:50:13AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, please don't tag patches for -stable, because -stable doesn't > take _patches_. Really, I didn't know that?! :-) > It takes commits from the Linus' tree and backports them and that's > maintainer's job to tag them for -stable, not yours. You're not serious, right? This is not the case in at least 50% of the cases. And this is OK because maintainers don't always know whether the patch should be tagged for stable. So yes, people should add the stable tag and yes, committers still have a veto over it. And yes, Andreas and I *know* how stable patches get applied, thank you very much. [ … ] > Yes, they do, but that means it doesn't make sense to send them stuff > before it's been merged, right? Ok, I get it, you don't want people to send patches to stable@vger *before* they've hit mainline. Nothing in states that stable@vger shouldn't get CCed on submissions unless the patch is upstream and besides, stable@vger gets CCed in a lot of discussions anyway so there's other traffic just the same. Bottomline: If you think people shouldn't spam stable@vger, then tough luck - I don't think you can stop people from accidentally/due to the automated nature of the process, CC stable. Even if it said so in the above doc file. As a result, stable maintainers simply rely on scripts which verify the patch is actually upstream before applying it to stable. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. -- 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/