On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:17:55PM -0700, Peter Kieser wrote:

On 2014-09-05 2:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

Just because a maintainer/developer doesn't want to do anything for the
stable kernel releases does_NOT_  mean the code is
"unstable/expreimental" at all.

These are more bcache-ate-my-data unstable bugs. It's standard practice to
backport fixes that cause instability/data corruption to a 'stable' release
(otherwise, why would it be named 'stable')?

That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what sounded like someone
wanting to go back and mark an older kernel feature as "unsupported".

greg k-h