On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:42:28 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> AFAICS that documented way is for a different situation? I assume you mean
> this part:
>
> * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking::
>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
>
> But that would assume we actively want to backport this cleanup patch in the
> first place. But as I understand Steven's intention, we want just to make
> sure that if in the future this patch is backported (i.e. as a dependency of
> something else) it won't be forgotten to also backport c9929f0e344a
> ("mm/slob: remove CONFIG_SLOB"). How to express that without actively
> marking this patch for backport at the same time?
Exactly! This isn't to be tagged as stable. It's just a way to say "if you
need this patch for any reason, you also need patch X".
I think "Depends-on" is the way to go, as it is *not* a stable thing, and
what is in stable rules is only about stable patches.
-- Steve
