On 2019/6/18 15:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:52:21PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/6/18 14:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:52:21PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/6/18 14:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang
On 2019/6/18 14:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang
On 2019/6/18 13:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:08AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> >> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for
> >> merging soon... I'm still working on it,
On 2019/6/18 4:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for
>> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability
>> these days and hope these patches get merged for
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:16:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> At last, this is RFC patch v1, which means it is not suitable for
> merging soon... I'm still working on it, testing its stability
> these days and hope these patches get merged for 5.3 LTS
> (if 5.3 is a LTS version).
Why would 5.3 be