Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken on SGI UV

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 01:38:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do we track people dong this at all? I wonder how many patches in
> > > linux-next have cc: stable in them but haven't been submitted to
> > > Linus,
> > 
> > The other side of that coin is to wonder how many patches get marked
> > as "stable" when they definitely shouldn't be.
> > 
> > I know that's a non-empty set. Too many developers think that the
> > thing they fix is so important that it needs to be backported. And it
> > doesn't help that Greg is sometimes over-eager to take things without
> > them being even in my tree long enough to get much testing.
> > 
> > Quite frankly, if somebody has something in "next" (and really meant
> > for the _next_ merge window, not the current one) that is marked for
> > stable, I think that shows uncommonly bad taste. And that, in turn,
> > means that the "stable" tag is also very debatable. It clearly cannot
> > be important enough to really be for stable if it's not even being
> > aggressively pushed into the current -rc.
> 
> Well, I know of at least one regression fix that is waiting in linux-next
> for the upcoming merge window and it most likely is tagged as -stable material.

Which one is it?

curious,

greg k-h