David Miller [off-list ref] writes:
From: Kalle Valo <redacted>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300
quoted
AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug
has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not
hurt.
As a maintainer you have a right to handle bug fixing in that way, but
certainly that is not how I would handle this.
It's easy to validate this fix, it's extremely unlikely to cause
a regression, and fixes a problem someone actually was able to
trigger.
Deferring to -next only has the side effect of making people wait
longer for the fix.
Yeah, you are right there. I did actually ponder which I tree should
commit it back in July but due to various reasons decided differently.
--
Kalle Valo
On Thu 2017-08-31 07:44:58, Kalle Valo wrote:
David Miller [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
From: Kalle Valo <redacted>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300
quoted
AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug
has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not
hurt.
As a maintainer you have a right to handle bug fixing in that way, but
certainly that is not how I would handle this.
It's easy to validate this fix, it's extremely unlikely to cause
a regression, and fixes a problem someone actually was able to
trigger.
Deferring to -next only has the side effect of making people wait
longer for the fix.
Yeah, you are right there. I did actually ponder which I tree should
commit it back in July but due to various reasons decided differently.
Can we still get the fix to v4.13-final? :-).
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html