> > I'm not sure how feedback in the form of "this sucks but I'm sure it > > could be much better" is useful. > > I've already given you some specific suggestions. > > I can't force you to listen to them, of course. > Eric, As you probably know, this is not the first time that the subject of the AUTOSEL process has been discussed. Here is one example from fsdevel with a few other suggestions [1]. But just so you know, as a maintainer, you have the option to request that patches to your subsystem will not be selected by AUTOSEL and run your own process to select, test and submit fixes to stable trees. xfs maintainers have done that many years ago. This choice has consequences though - for years, no xfs fixes were flowing into stable trees at all, because no one was doing the backport work. It is hard to imagine that LTS kernel users were more happy about this situation than they would be from occasional regressions, but who knows... It has taken a long time until we found the resources and finally started a process of reviewing, testing and submitting xfs fixes to stable trees and this process involves a lot of resources (3 maintainers + $$$), so opting out of AUTOSEL is not a clear win. I will pencil down yet another discussion on fs and stable process at LSFMM23 to update on the current status with xfs, but it is hard to believe that this time we will be able to make significant changes to the AUTOSEL process. Thanks, Amir. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20201204160227.GA577125@xxxxxxx/#t
