From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from h1446028.stratoserver.net ([85.214.92.142]:35523 "EHLO mail.ahsoftware.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754900Ab2DLUat (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:30:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4F873B5D.7010309@ahsoftware.de> (sfid-20120412_223107_511140_017C1176) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:30:21 +0200 From: Alexander Holler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Sergio Correia , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-wireless Mailing List , Sujith Manoharan , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <4F8733C1.7020305@ahsoftware.de> <20120412200606.GA23764@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20120412200606.GA23764@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 12.04.2012 22:06, schrieb Greg KH: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:57:53PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Am 12.04.2012 02:29, schrieb Greg KH: >> >>>> is there any chance for this one to be included in this review cycle? >>>> >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg87999.html >>> >>> Have you read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt? Based on that, I >>> don't think it can, yet, right? >> >> Hmm, after reading that, I think the text could need an update about >> how to submit patches written by others (which can already be found >> in the upstream tree). >> >> At least for me the text reads like only the authors can request >> inclusion of a patch into the stable tree. > > Patches are always welcome, but I think you will find the file already > describes this (hint, the first '-' line for the Procedure section > handles it). That reads: "- Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to stable@vger.kernel.org. You must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish it to be applied to." Maybe I'm a bit dumb, but what would be my changelog if the patch was written by someone else (and e.g. fixes something the author wasn't aware of or hasn't described)? Sorry, but I don't understand "changelog" in that context. Should I modify the (description of the) patch? Regards, Alexander From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Holler Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:30:21 +0200 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: <20120412200606.GA23764@kroah.com> References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <4F8733C1.7020305@ahsoftware.de> <20120412200606.GA23764@kroah.com> Message-ID: <4F873B5D.7010309@ahsoftware.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org Am 12.04.2012 22:06, schrieb Greg KH: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:57:53PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Am 12.04.2012 02:29, schrieb Greg KH: >> >>>> is there any chance for this one to be included in this review cycle? >>>> >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg87999.html >>> >>> Have you read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt? Based on that, I >>> don't think it can, yet, right? >> >> Hmm, after reading that, I think the text could need an update about >> how to submit patches written by others (which can already be found >> in the upstream tree). >> >> At least for me the text reads like only the authors can request >> inclusion of a patch into the stable tree. > > Patches are always welcome, but I think you will find the file already > describes this (hint, the first '-' line for the Procedure section > handles it). That reads: "- Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to stable at vger.kernel.org. You must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish it to be applied to." Maybe I'm a bit dumb, but what would be my changelog if the patch was written by someone else (and e.g. fixes something the author wasn't aware of or hasn't described)? Sorry, but I don't understand "changelog" in that context. Should I modify the (description of the) patch? Regards, Alexander