On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:14:40PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:38:57PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 11:35:33AM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:53:03PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:17:28AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 08:35:24PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 10:16:48AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 08:05:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 12:03:20PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
>
> drm: Fix color LUT rounding
>
> to the 6.7-stable tree which can be found at:
> http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
>
> The filename of the patch is:
> drm-fix-color-lut-rounding.patch
> and it can be found in the queue-6.7 subdirectory.
>
> If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
I guess I wasn't clear enough in the other mail...
NAK for all of backports of this patch.
Ok, but why? It seems that you are fixing a real issue here, right? If
not, the changelog is not clear with that at all...
I'll go drop it now, thanks.
Because backporting it would require other backports that depend on
the rounding behaviour.
Can I somehow fully opt out of these automagic backports?
If I want my stuff backported I'll ask for it.
You can, just let me know what exact files should be ignored, or you can
send a patch against this file:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list
I think we should add at least i915 and xe there. cc: maintainers
It does feel a little wild to decide a patch needs to be backported
based on the commit title starting with "Fix", or whatever way was used
here. We always relied on patches being backported based on a) having a
Fixes: trailer and b) the commit pointed out in that trailer
being present in that stable version. Or the others options shown
in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
Looking at the commit in question, c6fbb6bca10838485b820e8a26c23996f77ce580
there's no such a trailer. Did I miss something from
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst?
Where did you see anything about the Fixes: trailer in the document
you've pointed to?
End of "Option 1":
Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
Let me quote the entire section containing the sentence you've pasted
above:
* For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
the following format in the sign-off area:
.. code-block:: none
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.3.x
The tag has the meaning of:
.. code-block:: none
git cherry-pick <this commit>
For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
Looking at the above, does the phrase "such tagging" refer to stable@
tags in general, or to tagging of prerequisite patches?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
