On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Miao Wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 2024年8月20日 21:36，Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 写道：
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 09:19:04PM +0800, Miao Wang wrote:
> >> Hi, Greg
> >>
> >> I saw you have included commit 7697a0fe0154 ("LoongArch: Define
> >> __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT in unistd.h") in your stable trees, which
> >> actually introduced new sys calls newfstatat and fstat to Loongarch.
> >
> > See the documentation in that commit for why it was done.
>
> Thanks for your explanation. I totally understand the necessity of
> re-introducing thees two syscalls. I just wonder whether there is any
> limitation on what can be included in to the stable trees. If there
> was no limitation, theoretically, I could also maintain a so-called
> stable tree by applying all the patches from torvalds' tree, except
> those that bumps the version number. Apparently such a "stable" tree
> is far from stable.
Or you could do the opposite, something that I have seen vendors do, and
just bump the kernel version number to try to "claim" they updated their
kernel to a more secure one (i.e. one that fixed loads of known issues),
but they really didn't.
Either way, it's your kernel, you are free to do whatever you want with
it, have fun! :)
greg k-h
