On Wed 14-07-21 11:30:46, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:52:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 13-07-21 18:28:13, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > At present this -stable
> > > promiscuity is overriding the (sometime carefully) considered decisions
> > > of the MM developers, and that's a bit scary.
> >
> > Not only scary, it is also a waste of precious time of those who
> > carefuly evaluate stable tree backports.
>
> I'm just as concerned with the other direction: we end up missing quite
> a lot of patches that are needed in practice, and no one is circling
> back to make sure that we have everything we need.
>
> I took a peek at SUSE's tree to see how things work there, and looking
> at the very latest mm/ commit:
>
> commit c8c7b321edcf7a7e8c22dc66e0366f72aa2390f0
> Author: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue May 4 11:12:10 2021 +0200
>
> mm: memcontrol: fix cpuhotplug statistics flushing
> (bsc#1185606).
> suse-commit: 3bba386a33fac144abf2507554cb21552acb16af
>
> This seems to be commit a3d4c05a4474 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cpuhotplug
> statistics flushing") upstream, and I assume that it was picked because
> it fixed a real bug someone cares about.
Nope. It has been identified as potentially useful/nice to have. There
was no actual bug report requiring it. We do that a lot. In fact we do
have a full infrastructure around git fixes and backport fixes
proactively. Mostly because stable tree, which we used to track in the
past, has turned out to be overwhelming with questionable/risky
backports. The thing, though, is that those fixes are carefully reviewed
by a domain expert before backporting.
> I can maybe understand that at the time that the patch was
> written/committed it didn't seem like stable@ material and thus there
> was no cc to stable.
>
> But once someone realized it needs to be backported, why weren't we told
> to take it into stable too?
We tend to do that for many real bug reports.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
