On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 11:51 +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > On Tuesday 19 June 2012 02:02:27 David Miller wrote: > [....] > > Patches you want to end up in -stable should be submitted for 'net' > > not 'net-next'. > > > > There is no other valid submission scheme. > > I know that. This is also completely right and not contested by me. I did not > submit/create the pull request and don't want to talk about that part too > much. At least I am not very good in speaking for other people and don't want > to create more hiccups than I already caused :) > > The part that was more interesting for me is the backporting (+ submission of > these patches) or annotation to which kernel that patch should be backported. > The stable_kernel_rules.txt gives a nice overview about how to say which > other > patches should be cherry-picked to get this fix applied. But we could also > have the problem with kernel version that are not obvious (since the patch > doesn't apply directly on that version) and a backported patch is a better > choice than cherry-picking many other things. > > Is it correct as Antonio did it (submitting more than one patch, but with a > special "# 3.x" for each one after the Cc: )? [...]
There's not much sense in a 'cc' if you're sending a new message (the backport) specificaly to stable. Instead, use a subject like '[PATCH 3.x] original commit summary'. You do need to make clear that this is a backport and not just a request to cherry-pick the upstream commit. Also, you should wait and send it after the original goes upstream, because stable maintainers will usually want to either apply or reject immediately rather than storing things up. Greg's scripts will tell you when this happens, or at least when he next checks. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
