From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: tmio: eliminate unused variable 'mmc' warning Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:20:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1312354138.14329.1.camel@phoenix> <1314471775.2138.28.camel@drake> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:43722 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751779Ab1H1SU3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:20:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1314471775.2138.28.camel@drake> (Ian Molton's message of "Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:02:51 +0100") Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: ian@mnementh.co.uk Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski , Axel Lin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Hi Ian, On Sat, Aug 27 2011, Ian Molton wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 08:55 -0400, Chris Ball wrote: >> > Good for 3.1, do we also push such "harmless" compiler warning fixes >> > to stable? >> > >> > Acked-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski >> >> Pushed for 3.1, thanks. I don't think this is appropriate for stable. > > Why on earth not? its obviously correct... Because the rules for stable@ consist of more than the patch being obviously correct. You seem to have chosen one stable@ rule that this patch meets, and ignored the other nine which it mostly does not meet: Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a problem..." type thing). - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical. - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace cleanups, etc). Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child