Return-path: Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]:8391 "EHLO sabertooth01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752057Ab3H0G52 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:57:28 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: Michal Kazior , linux-wireless , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] ath10k: fixes References: <1377066854-13981-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1377507205-5386-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:57:22 +0300 Message-ID: <87mwo3mxil.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20130827_085730_778087_05A539E6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "Luis R. Rodriguez" writes: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Michal Kazior wrote: >> ath10k: fix issues on non-preemptible systems > > This patch looks like a stable candidate fix. Please annotate as such > if you confirm. Also, I reviewed other ath10k "fixes" and I see no > practice of propagating any patches to stable yet. Can you please > start doing that? If there were patches which are already merged > upstream that should be propagated to stable then they can be > submitted as stable candidate patches. I disagree. The point of linux-stable is _not_ that we send all possible fixes to stable. Instead we should send fixes only which really matter to users and for which we have received bug reports. I haven't yet seen any fix for ath10k which should be a candidate for stable releases. If we start sending all ath10k fixes to stable it's just extra churn for both Greg and people working on ath10k. -- Kalle Valo