On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:00:35PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:52:48PM -0800, Matt Carlson wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:11:03PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > > From: "Matt Carlson" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:06:13 -0800 > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:39:35PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 02:51:10PM -0800, Matt Carlson wrote: > > > >> > If management firmware is present and the device is down, the > > > >> > firmware > > > >> > will assume control of the phy. If a phy access were allowed from > > > >> > the > > > >> > host, it will collide with firmware phy accesses, resulting in > > > >> > unpredictable behavior. This patch fixes the problem by disallowing > > > >> > phy > > > >> > accesses during the problematic condition. > > > >> > > > > >> > Upstream commit ID f746a3136a61ae535c5d0b49a9418fa21edc61b5 > > > >> > > > >> There is no such upstream git commit id in Linus's tree. What am I > > > >> doing wrong here? > > > > > > > > The commit is in Dave Miller's net-next-2.6 tree. > > > > > > > > > > If it wasn't appropriate for net-2.6, it absolutely it not appropriate > > > for -stable. > > > > net-2.6 was the target tree for the patch. The stable_kernel_rules.txt > > seemed to suggest that I could just CC [email protected] with the > > commit ID, and Greg would pull it in as the process dictates. If that > > isn't correct, what is the preferred way to expedite the integration of > > a patch? > > Keep reading that file, it says to put the Cc: in the signed-off-by area > of the original patch.
Ah. Yes. I see that now. > Also, that file says the patch has to be in Linus's tree, otherwise > sending me a git commit id of some other tree isn't going to help at > all. I see. Thanks for the tips. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
