On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:57:04AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > 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? I think so, they are one of the few filesystems that do a great job of marking things for stable when needed (other good examples are ext4, and xfs is finally getting there.) So I would remove them. thanks, greg k-h
