On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:42 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11.03.24 21:06, Filipe Manana wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:23 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > > Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > > > > It has no stable tag because when I sent the patch there was yet no > > kernel release with the buggy commit > > Obviously, no need to explain, the discussion got unintentionally > sideways after David mistakenly said "The commits have stable tags > [...]". Happens, no worries. > > >> 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). > > > > Don't worry, we are paying attention to that and we'll remind Greg if necessary. > > Thx. But well, for the record: I would really have liked if you or David > would simply have just answered my earlier "And how fast afterwards will > it be wise to backport them to 6.8?" question instead of avoiding it. If I avoided that question it's because I can't give an answer to it. David is the maintainer who picks patches for Linus and does the pull requests. So the "how fast" depends on him and then how fast Linus merges and then how fast Greg and the stable people pick it. > Just knowing a rough estimate would have helped. And I guess Greg might > have liked to know the answer, too. But whatever. > > Side note: I'm here to "worry". It's not that I don't trust you or would > ask Greg behind your back to pick the patches up. It's just that we are > all humans[1]. And regression tracking is here to help with the flaws > humans have: they miss things, they suddenly need to go to hospitals for > a while, they become preoccupied with solving the next complicated and > big bug of the month, or just forget something they wanted to do because > something unexpected happens, like aliens landing in a unidentified > flying object. And from all the regressions I see that are not handled > well and the feedback I got it seems doing this work seems to be worth it. > > Ciao, Thorsten > > [1] at least I think so... > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog > :-D >
