From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:06:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] ARM: shmobile: fix memory size for kota2_defconfig Message-Id: <201301081906.32685.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: References: <1349195816-2225-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201301071333.56733.arnd@arndb.de> <20130108001947.GE16982@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20130108001947.GE16982@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Simon Horman Cc: Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@infradead.org, arm@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mundt , Magnus Damm , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 08 January 2013, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > Should we mark that patch for stable backports? > > I don't believe it warrants a stable backport as > the board appears to function well without the change. Ok, fair enough. I was thinking of getting rid of the build warning in the older kernel, but it's probably not worth it if there is no functional impact. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756917Ab3AHTGp (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:06:45 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:53338 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756641Ab3AHTGo (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:06:44 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] ARM: shmobile: fix memory size for kota2_defconfig Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:06:32 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.7.0-7-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@infradead.org, arm@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mundt , Magnus Damm , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org References: <1349195816-2225-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201301071333.56733.arnd@arndb.de> <20130108001947.GE16982@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20130108001947.GE16982@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201301081906.32685.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:KBOm4/fQ3NKqw3X2SApGg78MDAqUvVcFORUXjtv5y+9 BJwLxI6taBMfr3R1HKoTpLm1i9P7CZN5bOsb8ve5sOhDEUzE4z KFqJm4YInbBtx+wId6ixQYZ6GftubLgo/caZeutL6Z/N3XUz+n ioX7ApT4TWrNhoNkQbJ2qYrFSYjoFJ1cipM1twP9NaMkTs33kp 3We6oP9F44kCyY5R4J+eJoylMDyaJJVIvlkrzaNKnfqmp09Mrh EebyOdUZHSg+YeoOY40u1ghc/12pF5yWO8H4kmda4IYDltZMIf zhcpsrYoyVWZTIFbFsJVLIqvewQRsdHGJFCNtwCryRIBwbhw/c nPk0w9vn/60UthWGXJRA= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 08 January 2013, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > Should we mark that patch for stable backports? > > I don't believe it warrants a stable backport as > the board appears to function well without the change. Ok, fair enough. I was thinking of getting rid of the build warning in the older kernel, but it's probably not worth it if there is no functional impact. Arnd