From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:35601 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753748AbcCGUnC (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:43:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:43:01 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Sasha Levin Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , stable Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4.1.y 0/8] target: stable backports Message-ID: <20160307204301.GA27319@kroah.com> References: <1457227469-32210-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <56DC8263.5080006@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56DC8263.5080006@oracle.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 > > > > 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