On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:13:56PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:05:16PM -0500, Slade Watkins wrote: > > On 2/28/23 06:28, Greg KH wrote: > > >> But just so you know, as a maintainer, you have the option to request that > > >> patches to your subsystem will not be selected by AUTOSEL and run your > > >> own process to select, test and submit fixes to stable trees. > > > > > > Yes, and simply put, that's the answer for any subsystem or maintainer > > > that does not want their patches picked using the AUTOSEL tool. > > > > > > The problem that the AUTOSEL tool is solving is real, we have whole > > > major subsystems where no patches are ever marked as "for stable" and so > > > real bugfixes are never backported properly. > > > > Yeah, I agree. > > > > And I'm throwing this out here [after having time to think about it due to an > > internet outage], but, would Cc'ing the patch's relevant subsystems on AUTOSEL > > emails help? This was sort of mentioned in this email[1] from Eric, and I > > think it _could_ help? I don't know, just something that crossed my mind earlier. > > > > AFAICT, that's already being done now, which is good. What I was talking about > is that the subsystem lists aren't included on the *other* stable emails. Most > importantly, the "FAILED: patch failed to apply to stable tree" emails. Why would the FAILED emails want to go to a mailing list? If the people that were part of making the patch don't want to respond to a FAILED email, why would anyone on the mailing list? But hey, I'll be glad to take a change to my script to add that functionality if you want to make it, it's here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/bad_stable thanks, greg k-h
