From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751684Ab0K3V3U (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:29:20 -0500 Received: from rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de ([129.143.116.10]:42804 "EHLO rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751085Ab0K3V3T (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:29:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:29:18 +0100 From: Andreas Mohr To: Greg KH Cc: Andreas Mohr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -stable] Add USB PID for new MOSCHIP USB ethernet controller MCS7832 variant Message-ID: <20101130212918.GA20472@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> References: <20101130200737.GA5185@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20101130202712.GB16171@suse.de> <20101130210510.GA6057@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20101130211354.GA7635@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101130211354.GA7635@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 [trimmed receivers since it's less relevant] On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:13:54PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:05:10PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > 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? > > Read the line in that file that says: > - To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, > add the tag > Cc: stable@kernel.org > in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be > applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to > be done by the author or subsystem maintainer. > > > Shovel patch as-is to networking only (optionally specifying the > > somewhat unclearly formulated Cc: stable mechanism)? > > Or rather minimalist-reduce the patch, then dito? > > See above. Hmm, that doesn't fully answer it. Anyway, I know what I'll do. > > > 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* > > Examples? And are those people likely to put up the money to write > those docs? That's the big problem, people like to complain, but not > pay anyone to do the work... I was sheepishly referring to an earlier patch. Indeed, there's too much complaining and a dearth of activity sometimes. > thanks, > > greg k-h Andreas Mohr