Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:31:41PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable
> > releases.
> 
> The patch in question hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, but it's queued up
> in Stephen Rothwell's for-next tree.  As I understand it, Andrew's
> tree gets fed into that on a somewhat regular basis, and Andrew took
> my four patches (plus a patchcheck fixup he committed) already.  So, I
> pulled Stephen's for-next, put my patches plus the patchcheck fix on
> top, then wrote a fixup patch that fixes what I saw as being wrong in
> the patch in question.
> 
> > Ok, care to get the patch into Linus's tree and then I can take it
> > into
> > stable?
> 
> I made a new patch that fixes the patch I NAKed.  My entire patch set
> can be applied on top of his now (I was wrong about them conflicting,
> I think there was just enough space for the context not to overlap in
> a way that would conflict as I thought it would).  So, since the
> change isn't life threatening or anything, and can be easily fixed up,
> I'll withdraw my NAK and just submit the additional patch to correct
> it once I get home and have access to a mail program that does
> something besides attachments or mangled text as the only patch
> sending options.
> 
> Now, the question of whether or not you want a patch in -stable that
> hasn't hit Linus' tree yet is up to you...

Sorry, I can't do that, it's against the rules for -stable (see
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt).

Just get your patch into Linus's tree soon, and all should be good,
right?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/