On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:12:49AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > 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.
Ok, now dropped. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
