> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 of September 2008, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> >> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>>> What's so hard to understand about this?
> >>> Here's a simple rule of thumb:
> >>> - if it's not on the regression list
> >>> - if it's not a reported security hole
> >>> - if it's not on the reported oopses list
> >>> then why are people sending it to me?
> >>>
> >>> IOW, if it's just another random improvement, and you send it to me
> >>> outside of the merge window, then what is the point of the merge window?
> >> This is exactly what I've been trying to tell the Intel wireless folks
> >> but they refuse to listen.
> >>
> >> I just won't take their stuff until they get their act in gear.
> >>
> >> No problem.
> >
> > BTW, there are two regression fixes for forcedeth:
> >
> >
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121894389018584&w=4
> >
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121917167232014&w=4
> >
> > that fix the regressions tracked as:
> >
> >
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11358
> >
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11361
> >
> > respectively and both are more than 2 weeks old now.
> >
> > Is there any chance to push them upstream or is there anything wrong with them?
>
> Your patch is fine. Since DaveM and I are gone this weekend, feel free
> to add "acked-by: jgarzik@redhat" and forward upstream to Linus and Andrew.
