Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:09 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> So, with a bit of prodding from Thorsten, I'm writing this to ask you if >> you'd be willing to pull this patch directly from the mailing list as a >> one-off? It's a fairly small patch, and since it's a (partial) revert >> the risk of it being the cause of new regressions should be fairly >> small. > > Sure. I'm always open to direct fixes when there is no controversy > about the fix. No problem. I still happily deal with individual > patches. Awesome, thanks! > And yes, I do consider "regression in an earlier release" to be a > regression that needs fixing. > > There's obviously a time limit: if that "regression in an earlier > release" was a year or more ago, and just took forever for people to > notice, and it had semantic changes that now mean that fixing the > regression could cause a _new_ regression, then that can cause me to > go "Oh, now the new semantics are what we have to live with". > > But something like this, where the regression was in the previous > release and it's just a clear fix with no semantic subtlety, I > consider to be just a regular regression that should be expedited - > partly to make it into stable, and partly to avoid having to put the > fix into _another_ stable kernel.. OK, duly noted; thank you for clarifying :) -Toke
