On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:27:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 10:39:18PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled btrfs: separate out the eb and extent state leak helpers to the 6.0-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: btrfs-separate-out-the-eb-and-extent-state-leak-help.patch and it can be found in the queue-6.0 subdirectory. If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. commit 72845648c29a262b9cfbbe0e1ac678db0bc6166d Author: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri Sep 9 17:53:19 2022 -0400 btrfs: separate out the eb and extent state leak helpers [ Upstream commit a40246e8afc0af3ffdee21854fb755c9364b8346 ] Currently we have the add/del functions generic so that we can use them for both extent buffers and extent states. We want to separate this code however, so separate these helpers into per-object helpers in anticipation of the split. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>This is another case when a patch that's not fixing anything nor a dependency is taken from a series that in the end is only cleanups. Isn't there supposed to be some human oversight over the patches that are then sent as autosel? I think the number of false positives is too high and this means I have to spend more time on the autosel patches, though majority of them have some impact when backporting.
Would it make sense to remove fs/btrfs/ from autosel? -- Thanks, Sasha
