On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 12:20 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 02:39:38 -0800 > Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > > FWIW, this one should be Cc:stable - it's a plain and simple bugfix > > > (so are all of those that used to return the result of seq_printf() from > > > ->show()). > > > > Nah, it's not really a bugfix here. > > > > Patches sent to stable should fix actual bugs or failures. > > > > Sure, it's a defect, but it's only a logical one, not an > > actual one. It doesn't/can't fail in practice. > > > > This is only a single symbol and so it can't overflow the > > initial allocation. > > > > Besides that, the return value of the containing function > > is ignored. > > > > Right, there's nothing that will actually break with the current code. > The return value is ignored in the one place it is used. And no new > code is going to expect a result. > > It's a fix that's fine for the next merge window. It's not even > important enough to get into this window.
All of these "int->void seq_<foo>" changes are for 4.1 or whatever the next version is going to be called. And I think date based kernel versioning like <yyyy.mm.v> would have been better. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
