On 06.09.2023 20:25, Andi Shyti wrote: > 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 Please let me know once you come to an agreement, then I'll submit a (hopefully) final version.
