[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] stable_kernel_rules.txt: Exclude networking from stable rule

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stable_kernel_rules.txt: Exclude networking from stable rules
From: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:34:05 -0700
Cc: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130922185104.GA7515@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1309191229480.32035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130919.135628.1201613770803318193.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1309191359300.12162@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1379615474.22168.13.camel@joe-AO722> <20130922185104.GA7515@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 11:51 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This is also the preferred way to do it for XFS.  Maybe word it in a way
> that we can easily add subsystems.
> To me it generally seems to be the best way to do it - having random Ccs
> and lots of stable trees doesn't seem like a very good way of handling
> it.

Maybe adding a mechanism to MAINTAINERS would be better.
Maybe a default B: (backport?) of stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a per-subsystem override?

M:      maintainer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
L:      list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
S:      Supported
F:      file/pattern/
B:      stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>