From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sh_mmcif: fix use after free Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:37:19 -0400 Message-ID: <878vanio2o.fsf@octavius.laptop.org> References: <878vapq8fj.fsf@octavius.laptop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Guennadi Liakhovetski's message of "Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:08:57 +0100 (CET)") Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Hi Guennadi, On Tue, Oct 30 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> In future, feel free to note the >> stable@ situation by adding: >> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org [3.6] > > Hm, a bit confused. I seem to remember, that one of subsystem maintainers, > to whom I also submitted a patch, that should also have been forwarded to > stable, told me, that adding this "Cc: stable@..." tag was a task of > subsystem maintainers, in that case his task, and not of individual > submitters, which might only indicate their opinion in this respect. Am I > wrong? Oh, interesting; I haven't seen that complaint myself. I don't think there's a kernel-wide rule about this, but I might be wrong. Personally, I'm happy with receiving the stable@ tag because I like it when patch authors think about -stable and I want to encourage them to do so. (Often they know whether a patch is needed in -stable better than I do.) Of course, the stable@ team isn't going to do anything until the patch enters mainline, and the patch is only going to enter mainline through my tree after I've had a chance to change the stable@ tag if necessary, so there's no problem for me there. Sorry to leave you in the middle of conflicting advice. :-) The stable@ hint is appreciated in either form; I was just trying to save you some typing. Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:37:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sh_mmcif: fix use after free Message-Id: <878vanio2o.fsf@octavius.laptop.org> List-Id: References: <878vapq8fj.fsf@octavius.laptop.org> In-Reply-To: (Guennadi Liakhovetski's message of "Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:08:57 +0100 (CET)") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hi Guennadi, On Tue, Oct 30 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> In future, feel free to note the >> stable@ situation by adding: >> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org [3.6] > > Hm, a bit confused. I seem to remember, that one of subsystem maintainers, > to whom I also submitted a patch, that should also have been forwarded to > stable, told me, that adding this "Cc: stable@..." tag was a task of > subsystem maintainers, in that case his task, and not of individual > submitters, which might only indicate their opinion in this respect. Am I > wrong? Oh, interesting; I haven't seen that complaint myself. I don't think there's a kernel-wide rule about this, but I might be wrong. Personally, I'm happy with receiving the stable@ tag because I like it when patch authors think about -stable and I want to encourage them to do so. (Often they know whether a patch is needed in -stable better than I do.) Of course, the stable@ team isn't going to do anything until the patch enters mainline, and the patch is only going to enter mainline through my tree after I've had a chance to change the stable@ tag if necessary, so there's no problem for me there. Sorry to leave you in the middle of conflicting advice. :-) The stable@ hint is appreciated in either form; I was just trying to save you some typing. Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child