On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 08:19:06PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Personally I think we are not taking enough, and are still missing real > > > fixes. Overall, this is only a very small % of what goes into Linus's > > > tree every day, so by that measure alone, we know we are missing things. > > > > What % of what goes into Linus's tree do you think fits within the rules > > stated in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst ? I don't know but > > "very small" would be my guess, so we should be fine as it is? > > > > Or are the rules actually still being observed? I doubt e.g. many of the > > AUTOSEL backports fit them? Should we rename the file to > > stable-rules-nonsense.rst? > > There seems to be just one rule being observed: "It or an equivalent > fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).". Every other rule is > broken pretty much all the time. > > AUTOSEL is a problem. > > Plus there's problem with dependencies -- if a patch A is need for fix > B, the rules pretty much go out of the window, huge patches are > applied, whitespace fixes are applied, etc. > > There are even known-bad patches being applied, and then > reverted. Greg explained that it heps his process somehow. This seems to be a pretty consistent theme theme - thins are done baesd on whatever makes Greg's process easier, not input from the people stable ought to be working with. Pretty questionable set of priorities if you ask me.
