Chris Wright wrote:
> * Al Boldi ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Being semantically the same, while not exhibiting ramfs pitfalls, makes
> > it suitable to be pushed into the -stable tree, IMHO.
>
> You are failing to show how this is a critical type bugfix for -stable.
> We are picky about -stable additions because we don't want to undermine
> the value of the -stable tree.
If you mean critical as in "the kernel panics on boot without this patch",
then yes, this patch is not critical.
But if you think it's important to allow -stable to make full use of rootfs,
then this patch offers a much needed fix, by simply replugging existing
code.
Again, it's your call.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
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]
