On 07/15/2013 10:24 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 09:36:25PM -0700, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
Hi Greg,
since upgrading to 3.10.1 I find my system not waking up from suspend
from time to time. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to reliably
reproduce the issue. Sometimes
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 17:58 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
The MinnowBoard uses an AR803x PHY with the PCH GBE which requires
special handling. Use the MinnowBoard PCI Subsystem ID to detect this
and add a pci_device_id.driver_data structure and functions to handle
platform setup.
The AR803x
In case we fail our -udc_start() callback, we
should be ready to accept another modprobe following
the failed one.
We had forgotten to clear dwc-gadget_driver back
to NULL and, because of that, we were preventing
gadget driver modprobe from being retried.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
In case when system contains no dirty pages, wakeup_flusher_threads()
will submit WB_SYNC_NONE writeback for 0 pages so wb_writeback() exits
immediately without doing anything. Thus sync(1) will write all the
dirty inodes from a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback pass which is slow.
Fix the problem by using
From: Emmanuel Grumbach emmanuel.grumb...@intel.com
This small patch series enables 7260 and 3160 devices on 3.9 kernel. Three
patches are already in linux.git (3.11-rc1).
One patch is 3.9 specific and disables configuration that is not supported in
3.9.
Will resend without the Change-ID
From: Ruchika Kharwar ruch...@ti.com
When there is an error with the usb3_phy probe or absence, the error returned
is erroneously for usb2_phy.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ruchika Kharwar ruch...@ti.com
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com
---
resending with stable in Cc
From: Johannes Berg johannes.b...@intel.com
commit a2d0909a687b4d250cc2b7481072e361678745ba upstream.
As the firmware API has changed significantly and we don't
have support code for the old APIs, bump the version to be
able to release the version 7 API firmware.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg
Only BSS is supported in 3.10. In later kernels, other modes
have been fixed and tested to work.
This will at least allow user to use the regular wifi
functionality.
Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach emmanuel.grumb...@intel.com
---
drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/mvm/mac80211.c | 36
From: Johannes Berg johannes.b...@intel.com
commit dfcb4c3aacedee6838e436fb575b31e138505203 upstream.
The D3 firmware API changed to include a new field, adjust
the driver to it to avoid getting an NMI when configuring.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg johannes.b...@intel.com
---
This small patch series enables 7260 and 3160 devices on 3.10
kernel. Three patches are already in linux.git (3.11-rc1).
One patch is 3.10 specific and disables configuration that is not
supported in 3.10.
Emmanuel Grumbach (1):
iwlwifi: mvm: support BSS only
Johannes Berg (2):
iwlwifi: mvm:
This small patch series enables 7260 and 3160 devices on 3.9
kernel. Three patches are already in linux.git (3.11-rc1).
One patch is 3.9 specific and disables configuration that is not
supported in 3.9.
Dor Shaish (1):
iwlwifi: mvm: don't use cts to self
Emmanuel Grumbach (1):
iwlwifi: mvm:
From: Dor Shaish dor.sha...@intel.com
commit cc7ee2bab3d90b0a09651dcfa2d0c9ec1a115bc8 upstream.
The current fw doesn't currently support cts to self. There
is a bug in the fw that prevents us from using cts to self.
Use full protection (including RTS) for now.
Signed-off-by: Dor Shaish
From: Johannes Berg johannes.b...@intel.com
commit a2d0909a687b4d250cc2b7481072e361678745ba upstream.
As the firmware API has changed significantly and we don't
have support code for the old APIs, bump the version to be
able to release the version 7 API firmware.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg
Only BSS is support in 3.9. In later kernels, other modes
have been fixed and tested to work.
This will at least allow user to use the regular wifi
functionality.
Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach emmanuel.grumb...@intel.com
---
drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/mvm/mac80211.c | 24
Dear Fabio Estevam,
Hi Wolfram,
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Shawn Guo shawn@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 06:14:21PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.este...@freescale.com
Recently we have been seing some reports about PIO mode not working
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:17:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
I tend to hold things off after -rc4 because you scare me more than Greg
does ;-)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
CIFS use sensible file nlink values if unprovided
to the 3.10-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
CIFS use sensible file nlink values if unprovided
to the 3.4-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
CIFS use sensible file nlink values if unprovided
to the 3.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
I'll roar
right back, louder, for all the people who lose their voice when they
get yelled at by top maintainers. I won't be the nice girl anymore.
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 08:52 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:17:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org
wrote:
I tend to hold things
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:08:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
I'll roar
right back, louder, for all the people who lose their voice when they
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
But, but, the light side has brownies. Pot brownies that will make
everyone feel sleepy and peaceful and possibly hungry. For more pot
brownies...
Hmm. Maybe we should have a BoF at the KS.
I'll bring the
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
But, but, the light side has brownies. Pot brownies that will make
everyone feel sleepy and peaceful and possibly hungry. For more pot
On 07/11/2013 10:25:51 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
On 2013/7/12 8:50, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
rant
I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been
marked for
the stable releases right now that are not included in this
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
However, I am serious about this. Linus, you're one of the worst
offenders when it comes to verbally abusing people and publicly tearing
their emotions apart.
Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:08 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Greg has taught you well. You have controlled your fear. Now, release
your anger. Only your hatred can destroy me.
Come to the dark side, Sarah. We have cookies.
http://rostedt.homelinux.com/private/darth-cookie.png
-- Steve
--
To
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:17:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
However, I am serious about this. Linus, you're one of the worst
offenders when it comes to verbally abusing people and publicly tearing
On 07/15/2013 10:52:48 AM, Sarah Sharp wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:17:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org
wrote:
* Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Let's discuss this at Kernel Summit where we can at least yell at each
other in person. Yeah, just try yelling at me
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:17:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
However, I am serious about this. Linus, you're one of the worst
offenders when it comes to verbally abusing people and publicly tearing
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 11:46 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
*Snort*. Perhaps we haven't interacted very often, but I have never
seen you be nice in person at KS. Well, there was that one time you
came to me and very quietly explained you had a problem with your USB
3.0 ports, but you came off as
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Bullshit. I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers
why there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions,
and ask them to fit it without resorting to tearing them down
Hello Sarah,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:46:42AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:17:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
However, I am serious about this. Linus, you're one of the worst
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:05 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Nice, subtle, and polite all seem mostly orthogonal to me.
Nice and polite are rather attached. But subtle is orthogonal, as
in
Fuck you, subtly
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe stable in
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
BTW, I was amazed that you managed to get him have a much softer tone inr
his last e-mail, you probably found a weakness here in his management
process :-)
Hey, I _like_ arguing, and cursing and arguing are actually not at
all
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put is succinctly is that the distributions
are finding stable less
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:23:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
BTW, I was amazed that you managed to get him have a much softer tone inr
his last e-mail, you probably found a weakness here in his management
process :-)
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
Party pooper ;-)
The problem,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:07:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Bullshit. I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers
why there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions,
Hi Steven,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
How about this as a proposal.
Keep the Cc: stable@ tag as it is today.
Have Greg, or whoever, change his script to not take commits marked for
stable, but instead, forward the commit to the maintainer. Or as it
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Have Greg, or whoever, change his script to not take commits marked for
stable, but instead, forward the commit to the maintainer. Or as it
already does today, to everyone on the Cc, and -by: tags. Change the
script from being
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
[ ... ]
The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
is simple:
1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
...
The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
is simple:
1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to add an
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53:16PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
Good lord. So anyone that is one of your top maintainers could be
exposed to your verbal abuse just because they should have known
better?
You know what the definition of an abuser is? Someone that seeks out
victims that they
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 11:34 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 17:58 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
...
+/* The AR803X PHY on the MinnowBoard requires a physical pin to be toggled
to
+ * ensure it is awake for probe and init. Request the line and reset the
PHY.
+ */
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 17:58 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
The MinnowBoard uses an AR803x PHY with the PCH GBE which requires
special handling. Use the MinnowBoard PCI Subsystem ID to detect this
and add a pci_device_id.driver_data structure and functions to handle
platform setup.
The AR803x
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 21:55 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I disagree with your proposal. All these points are already covered by
the stable review and the early notification that the greg-bot does when
the patch is included in the queue. If submitters/maintainers do not read
these e-mails sent
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 01:41:35PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
I think this sums up the situation very well. Even if we accept that some
people can correctly choose when to be abusive, it creates an atmosphere
where other people will come to
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 21:15 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
One thing I don't particularly like about this is having to resend the
patches in response to mail; it seems cumbersome to do that rather than
reply to mail or something. Requiring a positive acknowledgement or
action seems useful but the
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It may not be efficient for maintainers, but as maintainers we should
spend a bit more time on stable releases.
The MAINTAINERS file specifies a difference between a
section that's Maintained vs Supported.
Do please remember there's a
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It may not be efficient for maintainers, but as maintainers we should
spend a bit more time on stable releases.
The MAINTAINERS file specifies a difference between a
section
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
How many maintainers are really just volunteers?
No idea. Here's a data point.
$ git grep ^S: MAINTAINERS|sed -r 's/\s+/ /g'|sort|uniq -c|sort -rn
818 MAINTAINERS:S: Maintained
248 MAINTAINERS:S: Supported
49 MAINTAINERS:S:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Ji
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for playing the victim
card. I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:56:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
I'm temporarily maintaining a 3.6 stable release (can't wait till I
don't have to do that anymore). And I cheat. I use the trees that Greg
uses, and I still spend days getting it ready.
I've been doing the same for a long time
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 02:44:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear
Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
This seems like a good discussion topic.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe stable in
the body of a message to
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is.
Stable tree stuff should cause almost _no_
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag,
but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer and not in the initial
patch submission. This would ensure that the maintainer(s) made the decision.
If the original
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag,
but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer and not in the initial
patch submission. This
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for playing the victim
card. I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
I should not
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
is simple:
1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to add an ill
reviewed patch
On 07/15/13 15:08, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for playing the victim
card. I will repeat: this is not just about
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:08:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for playing the victim
card. I will
On 07/15/2013 03:07 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag,
but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer and not
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
Can we please make this into a Kernel Summit discussion. I highly doubt
we would solve anything, but it certainly would be a fun segment to
watch :-)
I think we should, because I think it's the kind of thing we really
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:17:27 +0200 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
Communication works two ways.
I understand that to mean (at least) that for communication, every message
must be both sent and received. So when constructing a message, it is
important to think about how others will understand
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 12:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
BTW, I was amazed that you managed to get him have a much softer tone inr
his last e-mail, you probably found a weakness here in his management
process :-)
Hey, I
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:38:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
Can we please make this into a Kernel Summit discussion. I highly doubt
we would solve anything, but it certainly would be a fun segment to
watch :-)
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:36:15PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:08:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh, FFS, I just
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:38:08PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 07/15/2013 03:07 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:19:44 -0400 Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:05 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Nice, subtle, and polite all seem mostly orthogonal to me.
Nice and polite are rather attached.
Being polite without being nice is quite possible. It
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:36 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:08:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh, FFS, I just called
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 09:42 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
Being polite without being nice is quite possible.
It even has a name: Diplomacy.
And we all know how circular/indirect/implied/useless
some of those diplomatic conversations can be.
Just remember to bring a 'Big Stick' and don't be shy
when
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:01:18PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
This seems like a good discussion topic.
I agree, that sounds good to me.
greg k-h
--
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:01:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
subsystem maintainers, who have enough
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:22:16AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
is simple:
1. Drop the cc: stable@
On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make.
The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag.
If the stable tag is not added by the maintainer, it can always be added to
the stable queue after
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:15 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
One thing you should keep in mind in your discussion is what can happen
if people get too polite with each other.
I have seen this happen at two large companies I worked for. Early on, flames
are acceptable and expected as response
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:13:42PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make.
The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag.
If the stable tag is not
On 07/15/2013 05:21 PM, Greg KH wrote:
However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all.
I give maintainers 2 different chances to NAK a
On Monday, July 15, 2013 04:08:25 PM Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:01:18PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
This seems like a good discussion
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:38 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
Can we please make this into a Kernel Summit discussion. I highly doubt
we would solve anything, but it certainly would be a fun segment to
watch :-)
I
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:50:52 -0700 Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 09:42 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
Being polite without being nice is quite possible.
It even has a name: Diplomacy.
And we all know how circular/indirect/implied/useless
some of those diplomatic
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:54 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:50:52 -0700 Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 09:42 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
Being polite without being nice is quite possible.
It even has a name: Diplomacy.
And we all know how
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Maintainers are our most limited resource, I'm getting their ack when
they themselves tag the patch to be backported with the Cc: line.
I find stable maintainers even more limited.
I'm not sure our maintainers are the most limited resource, we
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:20:19PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/15/2013 10:24 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 09:36:25PM -0700, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
Hi Greg,
since upgrading to 3.10.1 I find my system not waking up from suspend
from time to time.
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
[...]
The second one is almost always due to security issues that were unknown
to the distro. The announcement of security problems to the distros has
now been addressed, and since that has changed, I haven't heard any
problems about this.
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16 2013, Darren Hart wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:36 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
The people who want to work together in a civil manner should get
together and create a Kernel maintainer's code of conduct that
outlines what they expect from fellow kernel developers. The
Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I
simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct.
Bullshit. I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers
why there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions,
and ask them to fit
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 03:43 +0100, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
I'd like other developers to treat me this way too, but perhaps a good
way to get started is to first come up with a statement of how we'd
like to treat others, and then start collecting signatories to it.
Does that sound like a good
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:17:30 -0400 Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:15 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
One thing you should keep in mind in your discussion is what can happen
if people get too polite with each other.
I have seen this happen at two large
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
How important is the stable releases? Are maintainers willing to do a
little more work now to make sure their subsystems work fine in older
kernels?
On 2013/7/16 6:08, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
sarah.a.sh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for playing the victim
card. I will repeat: this is not just about
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
Surely there is an enormous difference between being required to defend your
position against rational and forceful argument, and being required to defend
it against irrelevant name calling.
Sure, but I don't think there's really much name
On 07/15/2013 08:06 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Linus's point is that he wants to be honest, and cursing is his way of
giving you the most direct way to understand how he honestly feels.
What I don't get about anything of this is that I have always found
Linus' being hyper-obviously over the
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:34 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
Surely there is an enormous difference between being required to defend your
position against rational and forceful argument, and being required to
defend
it against irrelevant
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:27 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
I also heard some managers decided their kernel source packages should
have all the patches squashed together to make them harder to cherry-
pick... could it have been the same company?
Greg loves to tell stories about RH management,
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:27 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
Oh, I can name some kernel developers who I see are most friendly to other
developers, and you are one of them. ;)
That's because I've been blessed to only have to deal with good
developers ;-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
