On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 08:23:23PM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 11.03.24 19:41, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:15:31AM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > >> On 06.03.24 13:39, Filipe Manana wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 9:26 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > >>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 6.7-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > >>> > >>> It would be better to delay the backport of this patch (and the > >>> followup fix) to any stable release, because it introduced another > >>> regression for which there is a reviewed fix but it's not yet in > >>> Linus' tree: > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1709202499.git.fdmanana@xxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> Those two missed 6.8 afaics. Will those be heading to mainline any time > >> soon? > > > > Yes, in the 6.9 pull request. > > Great! > > >> And how fast afterwards will it be wise to backport them to 6.8? > >> Will anyone ask Greg for that when the time has come? > > The commits have stable tags and will be processed in the usual way. > > I'm missing something. The first change from Filipe's series linked > above has a fixes tag, but no stable tag afaics: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git/commit/?h=for-6.9&id=978b63f7464abcfd364a6c95f734282c50f3decf > > So there is no guarantee that Greg will pick it up; and I assume if he > does he only will do so after -rc1 (or later, if the CVE stuff continues > to keep him busy). As Filipe wrote "can actually have serious > consequences" this got me slightly worried. That's why I'm a PITA here, > sorry -- but as I said, maybe I'm missing something. Well it's the timing, last week before a final release the branches don't receive any insignificant changes like reviewed-by or stable tags. The patch connection is also done by the Fixes tag and a missing CC:stable can be substituted by explicit requests for backport if needed.
