On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:09 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:22:59PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > IMHO - I think it should be the other way around, you should get approval > > from sub-system maintainers to put their code in charge into auto-selection, > > unless there's kernel summit decision that says otherwise, is this documented > > anywhere? > > No, we can't get make this a "only take if I agree" as there are _many_ > subsystem maintainers who today never mark anything for stable trees, as > they just can't be bothered. And that's fine, stable trees should not > take up any extra maintainer time if they do not want to do so. So it's > simpler to do an opt-out when asked for. OK, but I must say I am worried from the comment made here: "I'm not sure what a fixes tag has to do with inclusion in a stable tree" This patch (A) was pushed to -next and not -rc kernel (B) doesn't have fixes tag (C) the change log state clearly that what's being "fixed" can't be reproduced on any earlier kernel [..] "only possible to reproduce with next commit in this series" but it was selected for -stable -- at least if the fixes tag was used as gating criteria, this wrong stable inclusion could have been eliminated
