On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 05:22:17AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Ok, I'll go revert them all now. I did some test builds here with them reverted and they seem sane. I'll push out some -rcs with just the reverts to at least fix the regressions found in the 6.8.y tree now. > 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. No worries, if you want, we can add any files/paths to our "ignore Fixes: tags, only take cc: stable ones" that we have for many parts of the kernel already, where maintainers are good and properly tag stuff. Just let me know. thanks, greg k-h
