On 21/02/14 15:21, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:35:48AM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 20/02/14 20:08, [email protected] wrote: >>> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 3.13-stable tree. >>> >>> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at >>> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. >>> >>> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to >>> <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be >>> applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be >>> seen again. >> >> This patch is mostly a rename. The proper diffstat looks like: >> >> include/uapi/xen/Kbuild | 2 ++ >> include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntalloc.h | 0 >> include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntdev.h | 0 >> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> rename include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntalloc.h (100%) >> rename include/{ => uapi}/xen/gntdev.h (100%) >> >> It avoids distro packagers etc. from having to hack their packages to >> install these headers. > > But how does this fit the stable kernel rules? It's something that has > always been "broken", right? It's not a regression from what I can > tell.
There's nothing in the stable_kernel_rules.txt about accepting only regression fixes. Nor has this historically been the case. The gnttab/gntalloc devices are effectively unusuable without their corresponding headers so I considered this sufficient to meet the 'some "oh, that's not good" issue' requirement. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
