> On Jan 20, 2023, at 8:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:32:30AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2023, at 2:05 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 08:44:35PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>> For CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL systems, the tick_do_timer_cpu cannot be offlined.
>>>> However, cpu_is_hotpluggable() still returns true for those CPUs. This causes
>>>> torture tests that do offlining to end up trying to offline this CPU causing
>>>> test failures. Such failure happens on all architectures.
>>>>
>>>> Fix it by asking the opinion of the nohz subsystem on whether the CPU can
>>>> be hotplugged.
>>>>
>>>> [ Apply Frederic Weisbecker feedback on refactoring tick_nohz_cpu_down(). ]
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: rcu <rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Fixes: 2987557f52b9 ("driver-core/cpu: Expose hotpluggability to the rest of the kernel")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Also want to cc: stable on the patch?
>>
>> Oh sure, sorry. For some reason I thought Sasha and your AI scripts
>> were looking at the Linux-kernel list as well. Or are they, and a Cc
>> to stable is just to be doubly sure?
>
> As per the rules we have had for the last 15+ years, always add a cc:
> stable to be sure that the patch will be considered for stable releases.
> If not, you are on you own and sometimes we might notice it, others not.
>
> See:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> for the details.
Ah my bad, I did read that already but somehow assumed anything merged with a Fixes tag was already considered for stable. I will always Cc stable henceforth if I want something in stable.
Thank you!
- Joel
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
