On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 18:50:28 -0400 Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 10:02:20AM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > >From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:09:46 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 04:17:48PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > >> > > <snip> > >> > > > >> > > Stopping right here, if you have fixes that will not cleanly apply, and > >> > > you think they should be applied, please fix them and send the proper > >> > > backport. I don't have the cycles to do these on my own. > >> > > > >> > > Same for anything else here that you think should be applied but does > >> > > not cleanly build/apply. > >> > > >> > Totally agreed. Actually, I posted a similar report[1] before and received > >> > similar response. I promised to back-port some of those by myself. That's > >> > still in my TODO list, but I was unable to get a time to revisit it quite long > >> > time. From this, I realized that it wouldn't be easy to review, test, and > >> > backport all of the such suspicious things by myself. Scaling up to multiple > >> > stable series (the tool says there are 152 fixes and 147 mentions for 4.9.y) > >> > seems impossible. > >> > > >> > For the reason, I updated the tool to make the report to be sent to not only > >> > the stable maintainers but also the authors of the suspicious commits, because > >> > the review / test / backport of their own commits would be much easier that > >> > others. As a result, we were able to find one suspended commit: > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/CAKfTPtAkOes+HmVabRazhCBBUo0M+QW38q3Zzj_O3O+Ghvc1pA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> That work had already been done before your email was sent. > >> > >> I too can write a tool that sends out "this patch might be for stable, > >> will you do the work for it!" emails, but that's a bit rude to ask > >> others to do your work for you, don't you agree? By asking me and > >> others to dig through this list, when you said you don't have the time > >> to do so, feels very odd to me. > > > >I thought the tool and this report are like a very simple form of the CI test > >bots like 0day, syzbot, or some kind of static analyzers. Mine has quite large > >number of false positives, though. Actually that was my only one concern. > >Therefore I thought asking the authors to check this could be a little bit > >annoying and therefore I asked them to let me know if they don't want this. > >I also thought making an explicit list of false-positive 'Fixes:' could help > >someone in the community. Also, I didn't intend to make others do my work > >instead, but I just wanted to help the community finding missed patches. > > And that's a good goal, but the help we need to accomplish that is in > the manual parts of the process which we can't automate: figuring out > whether a patch really needs to be backported, and doing the actual > backport. > > I'd encourage you to pick a small subset of your results and try doing > just that - it's not "all of nothing" and even doing a few of these will > help. Thanks for the kind explnation :) Thanks, SeongJae Park
