2023-12-13 23:36 GMT+09:00, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:13:37PM +0000, Steven French wrote: >> Out of curiosity, has there been an alternative approach for some >> backports, where someone backports most fixes and features (and safe >> cleanup) but does not backport any of the changesets which have >> dependencies outside the module (e.g. VFS changes, netfs or mm changes >> etc.) to reduce patch dependency risk (ie 70-80% backport instead of >> the typical 10-20% that are picked up by stable)? >> >> For example, we (on the client) ran into issues with 5.15 kernel (for >> the client) missing so many important fixes and features (and >> sometimes hard to distinguish when a new feature is also a 'fix') that >> I did a "full backport" for cifs.ko again a few months ago for 5.15 >> (leaving out about 10% of the patches, those with dependencies or that >> would be risky). > > We did take a "big backport/sync" for io_uring in 5.15.y a while ago, so > there is precident for this. > > But really, is anyone even using this feature in 5.15.y anyway? I don't > know of any major distro using 5.15.y any more, and Android systems > based on 5.15.y don't use this specific filesystem, so what is left? > Can we just mark it broken and be done with it? As I know, ksmbd is enable in 5.15 kernel of some distros(opensuse, ubuntu, etc) except redhat. And users can use this feature. I will make the time for ksmbd backporting job. To facilitate backport, Can I submit clean-up patches for ksmbd of 5.15 kernel or only bug fixes are allowed? Thanks. > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
