Patches from ARM folks solicited for the -stable tree
gregkh at linuxfoundation.org
Thu Nov 21 17:52:27 EST 2013
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:15:37PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 06:20:29PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:43:37AM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > These days it seems like I have about one patch per merge window that
> > > > > could be a stable candidate.
> > > >
> > > > That's all?
> > >
> > > The better we are at writing and testing our patches, the fewer -stable
> > > candidates we'll have :-)
> > No new device ids? quirks?
> It's true that the focus here for -stable has mostly been for fixes for
> code that causes some kind of crash or failure, rather than new device
> support. Including new device support could probably increase the amount
> of -stable patches by quite a bit. The problem with this is that it could
> cause hard-to-find regressions in the -stable kernel. For example, on
> OMAP, adding support for a new device could potentially cause PM
> regressions on the rest of the system, depending on how the driver
> operates. So the bar for those types of patches seems pretty high if it's
> really intended to be a "stable" kernel.
Then those "types" of patches are not device ids or quirks being added
to a table, so of course I wouldn't want to take those into the stable
More information about the arm-platform-maintainers