On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 11:56:11AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 04.07.23 10:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:13:03PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote: > >> On 04/07/23 1:54 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>>> While running LTP hugetlb testing on x86 the following kernel BUG noticed > >>>>> on running stable-rc 6.3.12-rc1. > >> > >> Have you looked at Patch 9 of this series: > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/2023070416-wow-phrasing-b92c@gregkh/T/#m12068530e846ac8b9668bd83941d82ec3f22ac15 > >> > >> Looks very much related, it also has a note on Backporting. > >> As I think it could be related, I am sharing this.(But haven't tested > >> anything) > > > > Yes, that's the offending patch. I should have read over the full > > changelogs before doing bisection, but bisection/test proved that this > > was not correct for 6.3.y at this point in time. > > FWIW, I'm preparing a few small tweaks for > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst (to be submitted after the > merge window). I among others consider adding something like this that > might help avoiding this situation: > > ``` > To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the > following format: > > .. code-block:: none > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # after 4 weeks in mainline > > For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, > just add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point > out known problems: > > .. code-block:: none > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # see patch description, needs > adjustments for 6.3 and earlier > > ``` > > Greg, if this is stupid or in case you want it to say something else, > just say so. That looks great, hopefully people notice this. We still have a huge number of people refusing to even put cc: stable in a patch, let alone these extra hints :) thanks, greg k-h
