On 28.02.23 12:28, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:41:07PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> 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. > [...] > In an ideal world, all maintainers would properly mark their patches for > stable backporting (as documented for the past 15+ years, with a cc: > stable tag, NOT a Fixes: tag), but we do not live in that world, and > hence, the need for the AUTOSEL work. Well, we could do something to get a bit closer to the ideal world: teach checkpatch.pl to help developers do the right thing in the first place. That's what I'm trying to do right now to make them add Link: tags more often (https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/d7f1d71e5ef6 ), as my regression tracking efforts heavily rely on them. Shouldn't be too hard to add a simple check along the lines of "this change has a Fixes: tag; either CC stable or do <foo> to suppress this warning" (<foo> could be a "nostable" tag or something else that we'd need to agree on first). In an ideal we'd maybe even have a "checkpatch bot" that looks at all patches posted and sends feedback to the list if it finds something to improve. Sure, some (a lot?) of what AUTOSEL does relies on data that is only available after a change was merged, but maybe some is available earlier already. Ciao, Thorsten
