On 04.12.10 13:30:12, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 12/04/2010 07:25 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >> I don't think this one is necessary for -stable. It's a path > >> preparing for future removal of an API and doesn't fix anything. > > > > Odd, why would it be marked for -stable then? Who did that, and why? > > Hmmm... I don't know. The original patch didn't cc -stable. Robert, > any ideas?
As this was a change in locking we put it into tip/perf/urgent and sent it upstream as a fix outside the merge window. Usually such patches are also for -stable, so I tagged it. But, feel free to drop it. -Robert -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
