On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 02:13:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > Ok, I'll try to rework the other dependant patches to see if we can get > that fix in somehow without this change. But why not take this, what is > it hurting? I just don't see the need to backport *any* patches from my tree that don't have an explicit Cc: stable@ marker on them. I'm pretty careful about adding those, and when I forget, I send them manually onward to stable@. If there's some judgement that a certain patch needs to be backported that I didn't mark, that sounds like something to deliberately raise, rather than a heap of emails that this patch and that patch have been added willy-nilly. The reason I care about this is that I generally care about stable and consistency of rationale and such, and so if you *do* want to backport some stuff, I am going to spend time checking and verifying and being careful. I don't want to do that work if it's just the consequence of a random script and not somebody's technical decision.
