On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 00:52:51 -0500 Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > [ Upstream commit f0ecf25a093fc0589f0a6bc4c1ea068bbb67d220 ] > > Having two gigantic arrays that must manually be kept in sync, including > ifdefs, isn't exactly robust. To make it easier to catch such issues in > the future, add a BUILD_BUG_ON(). > > ... > > --- a/mm/vmstat.c > +++ b/mm/vmstat.c > @@ -1189,6 +1189,8 @@ static void *vmstat_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos) > stat_items_size += sizeof(struct vm_event_state); > #endif > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(stat_items_size != > + ARRAY_SIZE(vmstat_text) * sizeof(unsigned long)); > v = kmalloc(stat_items_size, GFP_KERNEL); > m->private = v; > if (!v) I don't think there's any way in which this can make a -stable kernel more stable! Generally, I consider -stable in every patch I merge, so for each patch which doesn't have cc:stable, that tag is missing for a reason. In other words, your criteria for -stable addition are different from mine. And I think your criteria differ from those described in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. So... what is your overall thinking on patch selection?
