On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:01:12PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > 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. > I've now dropped all of your patches from the stable queues. thanks, greg k-h
