On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:11:29PM -0800, Daniel Wang wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 9:43 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:59:39PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>On (12/12/18 14:36), Petr Mladek wrote:
>> > OK, really didn't know that! I wasn't Cc-ed on that AUTOSEL email,
>> > and I wasn't Cc-ed on this whole discussion and found it purely
>> > accidentally while browsing linux-mm list.
>>
>> I am sorry that I did not CC you. There were so many people in CC.
>> I expected that all people mentioned in the related commit message
>> were included by default.
>
>No worries! I'm not blaming anyone.
>
>> > So if you are willing to backport this set to -stable, then I wouldn't
>> > mind, probably would be more correct if we don't advertise this as a
>> > "panic() deadlock fix"
>>
>> This should not be a problem. I guess that stable does not modify
>> the original commit messages unless there is a change.
>
>Agreed.
I'll be happy to add anything you want to the commit message. Do you
have a blurb you want to use?
If we still get to amend the commit message, I'd like to add "Cc:
stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" in the sign-off area. According to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.12/process/stable-kernel-rules.html#option-1
patches with that tag will be automatically applied to -stable trees.
It's unclear though if it'll get applied to ALL -stable trees. For my
request, I care at least about 4.19 and 4.14. So maybe we can add two
lines, "Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.14.x" and "Cc:
<stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.19.x".
We can't change the original commit message (but that's fine, the
purpose of that tag is to let us know that this commit should go in
stable - and no we do :) ).
I was under the impression that Sergey or Petr wanted to add more
information about the purpose of this patch and the issue it solves.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
