On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: > On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > >>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT > >>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported. > >>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported. > >>> > >>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val(). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This does not look like stable material to me. > > > > I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options: > > > > Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request() > > or remove this call entirely. > > > > Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it > > (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires > > this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too. > > > > Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed > in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me > that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a > fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable > I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the > actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise > this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like: > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks" > > I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden > the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd > defer to your experience. I came across that dependency format when Greg KH replied to somebody how to deal with the cases where there isn't yet a commit id (the cases mentioned in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst assumes there is already a commit id). Unfortunately it's long time ago so I cannot easily find the link. Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't state that the stable address should be only used for the patches with Fixes. In general, I believe this doesn't matter much because whether something is Cc'ed or not to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't seems to impact the decision if a patch goes into stable or not (even if even some maintainers seem to pretend leaving it out makes a difference so I tend to play along and smile myself how incorrect that assumption is :-)). -- i.
