From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755606Ab0K3VFO (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:05:14 -0500 Received: from rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de ([129.143.116.10]:46870 "EHLO rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751966Ab0K3VFL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:05:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:05:10 +0100 From: Andreas Mohr To: Greg KH Cc: Andreas Mohr , "David S. Miller" , stable@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , dhollis@davehollis.com, Phil Chang , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -stable] Add USB PID for new MOSCHIP USB ethernet controller MCS7832 variant Message-ID: <20101130210510.GA6057@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> References: <20101130200737.GA5185@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20101130202712.GB16171@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <20101130202712.GB16171@suse.de> X-Priority: none User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:27:12PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:07:37PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > Due to active notification of the new MCS7832 version by the manufacturer > > today (Mr. Milton; thanks!) -- quote: "functionality same as MCS7830", > > I'm now submitting this patch, intended for networking.git and -stable. > > This is not how you get stuff into the stable kernel trees, sorry. > Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to do that. >>From having read that perhaps 2 or 3 times (randomly) and following a couple dozen -stable mails I had the impression that remembering the constraints would be quite easy; obviously not - sorry! Did have some doubts about the number of hunks, though. And obviously violated the "must be upstream" rule. So what to do? Shovel patch as-is to networking only (optionally specifying the somewhat unclearly formulated Cc: stable mechanism)? Or rather minimalist-reduce the patch, then dito? > Sometimes I wonder why we even write documentation if no one ever reads > it... I could also mention some (strangely familiar) cases where people _didn't_ write kernel docs which many people likely would have liked to read to avoid wasting half-millions of dollars... *smirk* Thanks, Andreas Mohr