Hello, On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 07:11:04AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > Side note: I have no idea why the stable team backported those patches > > and no option on whether that was wise, just trying to help finding the best > > solution forward from the current state of things. > > The Fixes: tag triggered it, that's why they were backported. > > > > which would > > > be far too invasive for -stable, thus no Cc: stable. > > > > > > I didn't know a Fixes > > > tag automatically triggers backport to -stable. I will keep that in mind for > > > future. > > > > /me fears that more and more developers due to situations like this will > > avoid Fixes: tags and wonders what consequences that might have for the > > kernel as a whole > > The problem is that we have subsystems that only use Fixes: and not cc: > stable which is why we need to pick these up as well. Fixes: is great, > but if everyone were to do this "properly" then we wouldn't need to pick > these other ones up, but instead, it's about 1/3 of our volume :( > > I'll gladly revert the above series if they shouldn't have been > backported to stable, but from reading them, it seemed like they were > fixing an issue that was serious and should have been added to stable, > which is why they were. Oh, yeah, they're fixing an issue. It's just that the issue is relatively confined peformance degradation and the fix is really invasive, so not a great -stable candidate. At the very least, they'd need a log longer cooking time in mainline before being considered for -stable backport. My intention w/ Fixes: wasn't triggering -stable backport at all, so it's a miscommunication. From now on, I'll keep in mind that Fixes: does trigger backports. I'm not too worried about not using it as the fixee commit can be mentioned in the commit message. > This is also why we have review cycles, so maintainers can let us know > if they want us to drop them :) Heh, sorry about that. This never caused any issues, so I just glide over the stable mails without thinking. Thanks. -- tejun
