From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758124Ab1I2Xj3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:39:29 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43400 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757997Ab1I2Xj2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:39:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:39:02 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Doug Ledford Cc: stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Jiri Slaby , Manfred Spraul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value Message-ID: <20110929233902.GA5969@suse.de> References: <20110929190855.GA5381@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:31:41PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable > > releases. > > The patch in question hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, but it's queued up > in Stephen Rothwell's for-next tree. As I understand it, Andrew's > tree gets fed into that on a somewhat regular basis, and Andrew took > my four patches (plus a patchcheck fixup he committed) already. So, I > pulled Stephen's for-next, put my patches plus the patchcheck fix on > top, then wrote a fixup patch that fixes what I saw as being wrong in > the patch in question. > > > Ok, care to get the patch into Linus's tree and then I can take it > > into > > stable? > > I made a new patch that fixes the patch I NAKed. My entire patch set > can be applied on top of his now (I was wrong about them conflicting, > I think there was just enough space for the context not to overlap in > a way that would conflict as I thought it would). So, since the > change isn't life threatening or anything, and can be easily fixed up, > I'll withdraw my NAK and just submit the additional patch to correct > it once I get home and have access to a mail program that does > something besides attachments or mangled text as the only patch > sending options. > > Now, the question of whether or not you want a patch in -stable that > hasn't hit Linus' tree yet is up to you... Sorry, I can't do that, it's against the rules for -stable (see Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt). Just get your patch into Linus's tree soon, and all should be good, right? thanks, greg k-h