Hi Jean, > > > I wouldn't cc stable. For one thing, this patch doesn't fix a bug that > > > actually bothers people. Error paths are rarely taken, and driver > > > removal isn't that frequent either. Consequences are also rather > > > harmless (one-time resource leak, race condition which is quite > > > unlikely to trigger). > > > > we are having this same discussion in another thread: if a bug is > > unlikely to happen, doesn't mean that there is no bug. A fix is a > > fix and should be backported to stable kernels. > > No. Please read: > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html > > There is clearly a list of conditions for a commit to be eligible for > stable kernel trees. It's not "every fix". I think you are putting these fixes into the ""This could be a problem..." type of things". But as I see these fixes don't belong to this category, as they are clearing the exit path. This is a kind of fixes I want to see going to stable. Which means that if we exit through that path, do we exit cleanly, e.g., without leaking? If the answer is "no", then this is a fix and should go to stable. It belongs to "This could be a problem..." type, things like dev_err/dev_warn (first thing coming to my mind) or other non functional fixes. Maybe this is a matter of opinion and different background. For the i2c side I'm in peace :-) For the stable backport I'd love to hear another opinion. Thanks, Jean! Andi
