On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:49:25PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hey Eric, >> >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20:21AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>What is the justification for backporting this and the other similar >>>Documentation commits? >> >> It was flagged as a bug fixing patch by a new process we're testing, and >> when I looked at it I thought that the commit message suggests it fixes >> an ABI issue. > >Unfortunately they just reveal an ABI issue. I believe there are some >fixes coming but given that the issues are a decade old in many cases >actually fixing these things must be approach with care so as not to >create regressions. I've removed these commits. >>>These commits just introduce a define _FIXME with value of 0, to >>>document that the userspace ABI was handled incorrectly long ago. >>> >>>These commits do not fix anything. Thes commits do not change anything >>>except a little how they are handled in siginfo_layout. And I don't see >>>the changes that introduce siginfo_layout in kernel/signal.c being >>>backported. >>> >>>Further these commits don't even have a fixes tag so I am curious >>>what is triggering them for backport. >> >> We're testing out a new mechanism where we train a neural network to >> detect bug fixing patches and flag them for manual review. We're working >> on a FAQ + more detailed information right now. > >The neural network did seem to pick up on something that is worth >looking at. Indeed, and we use review input to retrain the NN on these commits. Thank you! -- Thanks, Sasha