Jean Delvare <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris, all,
>
> > -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us
> > know.
>
> I have. This one patch is rather big and parts of it don't seem to
> belong to -stable. Can't it be simplified? More below.
The threshold for "what belongs in -stable" is a) set too high and b)
over-zealously enforced.
> > Return to previous held-logic of calling scsi_add_host() only
> > after the board has been completely initialized.
>
> What real bug is it supposed to fix? (I guess some, but this leading
> comment should give the datails.)
If that's what was in the patch which went into 2.6.13 then we should be OK
with a full backport. If the person who originally raised that patch put
unrelated things into a single patch then that's where the problem started.
Bear in mind that there is also risk in only part-applying a patch.
> > Also return pci_*() error-codes during probe failure paths.
>
> How does this belong to stable please? I don't see this fixing any
> critical bug.
But it's obviously safe.
> > - if (ret != 0) {
> > + if (ret) {
>
> This aint -stable material.
But it's obviously safe. Let's use our brains on these patches and not
become beholden to doctrine, OK?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
