On Fri, Sep 17 2021 at 10:25, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:32:17AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> I already got a private bug report vs. that on 5.10.65. Annoyingly >> 5.10.5 does not have the issue despite the fact that the resulting diff >> between those two versions in hrtimer.c is just in comments. The bug report turned out to be a red hering. Probably caused by a bisect gone wrong. The real culprit was the posix-cpu-timer change which got reverted already. > Looks like Sasha picked it up with the AUTOSEL process, and emailed you > about this on Sep 5: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210906012153.929962-12-sashal@xxxxxxxxxx which I obviously missed. > I will revert it if you don't think it should be in the stable trees. It's a pure performance improvement, so according to stable rules it should not be there. > Also, if you want AUTOSEL to not look at any hrtimer.c patches, just let > us know and Sasha will add it to the ignore-list. Nah. I try to pay more attention. I'm not against AUTOSEL per se, but could we change the rules slightly? Any change which is selected by AUTOSEL and lacks a Cc: stable@... is put on hold until acked by the maintainer unless it is a prerequisite for applying a stable tagged fix? This can be default off and made effective on maintainer request. Hmm? Thanks, tglx
