On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 08:23:23PM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) 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@linuxfoundation.org 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@suse.com/
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=fo...
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). As Filipe wrote "can actually have serious consequences" this got me slightly worried. That's why I'm a PITA here, sorry -- but as I said, maybe I'm missing something.
Well it's the timing, last week before a final release the branches don't receive any insignificant changes like reviewed-by or stable tags. The patch connection is also done by the Fixes tag and a missing CC:stable can be substituted by explicit requests for backport if needed.