Re: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree

Andre Tomt
2005-03-05T18:44:06Z

Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>An example that doesn't fit:
>>
>>A patch of me to remove an unused function was accepted into 2.6.11 .
>>Today, someone mailed that there's an external GPL'ed module that uses
>>this function.
>>
>>A patch to re-add this function as it was in 2.6.10 does not fulfill
>>your criteria, but it is a low-risk way to fix a regression compared to
>>2.6.10 .
>
>
> Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with adding this kind of fix. Do others
> disagree?

Depends. Is Linus going to push it back into his tree? If it's just
something like the remap_page_range going away, fix the the module
instead, I'd say.