Scott,
I see that you added the USB ID in the subject for the DWA-130 device in commit
ea345c145ff23197eab34d0c4d0c8a93d7bea8c6.
Is there any reason that the new ID should not have been sent to Stable as well,
or was that an oversight?
Thanks,
Larry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On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 09:01:09PM +0200, Bj?rn Mork wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:50:49PM +0000, Scott Branden wrote:
> >> Hi Larry,
> >>
> >> There is no problem applying this patch to the stable tree.
> >> I didn't know it was my responsibility to inform the stable mailing list every time a patch is accepted
> >> in the latest kernel that could be applied to the stable tree?
> >
> > Just adding a Cc: stable@... in the commit message is enough to get it
> > automatically queued once applied. Please check SubmittingPatches and
> > stable_kernel_rules.txt for more information.
>
> It isn't absolutely clear to me that those rules applies to "wireless",
> being a sub-subsystem of "net". Quoting from stable_kernel_rules.txt :
>
> "- If the patch covers files in net/ or drivers/net please follow netdev stable
> submission guidelines as described in
> Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt"
>
> And the netdev-FAQ.txt goes into great detail describing the procedure,
> which basically is "Give davem a hint that the patch should go to
> stable". (and I'd like to note that this works very well in practice).
>
> But I have noticed that some stable patches seem to flow more directly
> into stable from "wireless" than from the rest of "net". I just don't
> think the current _written_ docs support that procedure. Those docs
> are possibly wrong? You should probably know much better than me :)
I'd say that if it's something that you submit through the regular netdev
process, David will automatically handle the backports and feed stable if
he spots this is needed (hence sometimes some hints in the commit message
about what oldest version should benefit from the backport can help it get
properly spotted if there's any ambiguity). If you didn't go through that
process, there's almost no chance he will detect your work and propose it
and then it makes sense to Cc stable.
I know that sometimes it can be ambiguous, hence the benefit of being
the clearest possible in the commit message all the time so that anyone
could possibly detect that your work needs to be backported if it slips
through the process.
Regards,
Willy
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:50:49PM +0000, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> There is no problem applying this patch to the stable tree.
> I didn't know it was my responsibility to inform the stable mailing list every time a patch is accepted
> in the latest kernel that could be applied to the stable tree?
Just adding a Cc: stable@... in the commit message is enough to get it
automatically queued once applied. Please check SubmittingPatches and
stable_kernel_rules.txt for more information.
Regards
Willy
On 06/03/2015 12:50 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> There is no problem applying this patch to the stable tree.
> I didn't know it was my responsibility to inform the stable mailing list every time a patch is accepted
> in the latest kernel that could be applied to the stable tree?
It is not necessary; however, it is best if it gets called to their attention.
I'm not sure if my E-mail was the reason, but your patch was applied to several
of the stable versions this morning. The rest will probably follow soon.
The easy way to do this is to add "Cc: Stable <[email protected]>" to the
original patch at submission. That way, stable gets the message as soon as it
goes into mainline.
Thanks,
Larry
Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:50:49PM +0000, Scott Branden wrote:
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> There is no problem applying this patch to the stable tree.
>> I didn't know it was my responsibility to inform the stable mailing list every time a patch is accepted
>> in the latest kernel that could be applied to the stable tree?
>
> Just adding a Cc: stable@... in the commit message is enough to get it
> automatically queued once applied. Please check SubmittingPatches and
> stable_kernel_rules.txt for more information.
It isn't absolutely clear to me that those rules applies to "wireless",
being a sub-subsystem of "net". Quoting from stable_kernel_rules.txt :
"- If the patch covers files in net/ or drivers/net please follow netdev stable
submission guidelines as described in
Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt"
And the netdev-FAQ.txt goes into great detail describing the procedure,
which basically is "Give davem a hint that the patch should go to
stable". (and I'd like to note that this works very well in practice).
But I have noticed that some stable patches seem to flow more directly
into stable from "wireless" than from the rest of "net". I just don't
think the current _written_ docs support that procedure. Those docs
are possibly wrong? You should probably know much better than me :)
Bjørn
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 09:01:36PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I see that you added the USB ID in the subject for the DWA-130 device in
> commit ea345c145ff23197eab34d0c4d0c8a93d7bea8c6.
>
> Is there any reason that the new ID should not have been sent to Stable as
> well, or was that an oversight?
>
Thanks Larry, I'll queue this patch for the 3.16 kernel.
Cheers,
--
Lu?s