On 17/09/15 15:12, David Miller wrote: > From: Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> > Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:42:09 +0100 > >> Thanks, I think that will solve it. I have to wonder why that patch >> (f8af8e6eb9509 in mainline) didn't made it into v4.2 though, as it's >> billed as a regression that occurred in the previous merge window, and >> given that it was sent in July, and we're now in September. As it >> wasn't in v4.2, it looks like it should be a stable candidate. > > The series had a whole bunch of non bug fixes in it and we were in > the final phases of 4.2, in which case I defer to applying patches > to net-next only unless I'm told otherwise.
To your defense, Staas and I kept arguing for a while, slowing the entire process down until we agreed on a proper solution, the submission was targeting your 'net' tree, but I did not realize until now that these got applied to 'net-next'. > > It's up the the patch/series author to let me know that an important > regression fix is hidden in there, but they should have submitted > it seperately from the rest in that kind of situation anyways. > >> David, any objections to having the stable guys pick this regression >> fix up, if not already done so? > > More than this patch is needed, the one before it (3/4) instantiates > the necessary property in the DT, for example. > > I can queue up the whole series for -stable if you want. I think this would be a good thing, mvneta-based platforms are fairly popular. Thank you! -- Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
