[ added stable folks ] On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 11:17:09 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:11 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > FWIW, I'm leaning toward suggesting that we apply the trivial tracing > > fix and backport *that*. Then, in -tip, we could revert it and apply > > this patch instead. > > You don't have to have the same fix in stable as in -tip. > > It's fine to send something to stable that says "Fixed differently by > commit XYZ upstream". The main thing is to make sure that stable > doesn't have fixes that then get lost upstream (which we used to have > long long ago). > But isn't it easier for them to just pull the quick fix in, if it is in your tree? That is, it shouldn't be too hard to make the "quick fix" that gets backported on your tree (and probably better testing), and then add the proper fix on top of it. The stable folks will then just use the commit sha to know what to take, and feel more confident about taking it. -- Steve
