On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:33:26 -0400 Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >I thought that absence of the Cc is the indication :P. Anyway, I really > >do not understand why should we bother, really. I have tried to explain > >that stable maintainers should follow Cc: stable because we bother to > >consider that part and we are quite good at not forgetting (Thanks > >Andrew for persistence). Sasha has told me that MM will be blacklisted > >from automagic selection procedure. > > I'll add mm/ to the ignore list for AUTOSEL patches. Thanks, I'm OK with that. I'll undo Fixes-no-stable. Although I'd prefer that "akpm" was ignored, rather than "./mm/". Plenty of "mm" patches don't touch mm/, such as drivers/base/memory.c, include/linux/blah, fs/, etc. And I am diligent about considering -stable for all the other code I look after. This doesn't mean that I'm correct all the time, by any means - I'd like to hear about patches which autosel thinks should be backported but which don't include the c:stable tag.
