From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751268AbaIFJVC (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Sep 2014 05:21:02 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com ([74.125.82.173]:49274 "EHLO mail-we0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750826AbaIFJU5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Sep 2014 05:20:57 -0400 Message-ID: <540AD288.5050602@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:23:20 +0200 From: Francis Moreau User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Jens Axboe , Kent Overstreet , Peter Kieser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, stable Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache changes for 3.17 References: <20140805043346.GF541@moria.home.lan> <53E10D48.1010700@kernel.dk> <53E7251B.3080305@kieser.ca> <540966BA.9030106@gmail.com> <20140905214532.GA30221@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20140905214532.GA30221@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/05/2014 11:45 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> On 08/10/2014 09:54 AM, Peter Kieser wrote: >>> >>> On 2014-08-05 9:58 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 08/04/2014 10:33 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>>> Hey Jens, here's the pull request for 3.17 - typically late, but lots of tasty >>>>> fixes in this one :) >>>> Normally I'd say no, but since it's basically just fixes, I guess we can >>>> pull it in. But generally, it has to be in my hands a week before this, >>>> so it can simmer a bit in for-next before going in... >>>> >>> Are these fixes going to be backported to 3.10 or other stable releases? >>> >> >> Could you please answer this question ? >> >> If you don't want to maintain bcache for stable kernels (I can >> understand that), can you mark it at least as unstable/experimental >> stuff since it really is ? > > WTF? > > Just because a maintainer/developer doesn't want to do anything for the > stable kernel releases does _NOT_ mean the code is > "unstable/expreimental" at all. > > That's not how stable kernel releases work. _IF_ a maintainer wants to > / has the time to, they can mark patches for inclusion in stable kernel > releases. Given the huge list of patches that Jens just posted, I doubt > that those are really something I would ever take for a stable kernel > release. > > Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for more details > please. And don't ask others to do backporting work for you, it's not > ok, and is something that I have always said is never required, and is > not going to be. > wow, not sure why I deserve such anger... Looks like you haven't understood me well and specially I *never* asked others to do the backporting for me. Please reread the thread, perhaps peaceful music can help too.