Re: [PATCH-v4.1.y 0/8] target: stable backports

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:17:55PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/05/2016 08:24 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
> > 
> > Hi Sasha,
> > 
> > The following series contains v4.1.y stable backports for a number
> > of target patches from upstream code, that don't appear in your
> > stable tree.
> > 
> > Also included is a small complile fix specific to v4.1.y code.
> > 
> > Please apply at your earliest convience.
> 
> Thanks Nicholas, I've added both series to their corresponding trees.
> 
> > Btw, I didn't seen any 'failed to apply' messages from you for
> > any of these patches, which is how I tell from Greg-KH when
> > something needs to be manually backported.
> > 
> > Is there a reason for not sending out 'failed to apply' emails..?
> 
> Good point. Since I was only maintaining 3.18 so far, I'd wait for
> maintainers to respond to Greg's mails about failure to apply on either
> 4.1 or 3.14, and just take their backport from there - which did the trick,
> and also reduced the amount of mails maintainers get regarding -stable trees.
> 
> I don't have a problem with starting to send "F-T-A" mails as well, but I
> wonder if we can somehow coordinate these mails between myself and Greg
> so we won't send one for each and every kernel version, but rather one
> specifying which stable versions failed to apply? Greg, What are your
> thoughts about this?

I don't know, I don't check any trees other than the ones I care about,
and send those messages out "manually" when I eventually give up on
trying to apply a patch.  Sasha, please send them out if you can't get a
patch to apply that is marked to be added to the kernels you are
maintaining, there's no reason for you not to.

thanks,

greg k-h