On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 05:29:30PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote: > On 6.3.2025 16.52, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > Why is a patch cc: stable burried here in a series for linux-next? It > > will be many many weeks before it gets out to anyone else, is that > > intentional? > > > > Same for the other commit in this series tagged that way. > > These are both kind of half theoretical issues that have been > around for years without more complaints. No need to rush them to > stable. Balance between regression risk vs adding them to stable. > > This patch for example states: > > "I had no luck producing this sequence of completion events so there > is no compelling demonstration of any resulting disaster. It may be > a very rare, obscure condition. The sole motivation for this patch > is that if such unlikely event does occur, I'd rather risk reporting > a cancelled partially done isoc frame as empty than gamble with UA" Ok, fair enough, just seeing patches languish in -next that are tagged for stable looks odd. thanks, greg k-h
