On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:49:24PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 17-04-18 14:24:54, Petr Mladek wrote: [...]
Back to the trend. Last week I got autosel mails even for patches that were still being discussed, had issues, and were far from upstream:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/DM5PR2101MB1032AB19B489D46B717B50D4FBBB0@DM5PR2101... https://lkml.kernel.org/r/DM5PR2101MB10327FA0A7E0D2C901E33B79FBBB0@DM5PR2101...
It might be a good idea if the mail asked to add Fixes: tag or stable mailing list. But the mail suggested to add the unfinished patch into stable branch directly (even before upstreaming?).
Well, I think that poking subsystems which ignore stable trees with such emails early during review might be quite helpful. Maybe people start marking for stable and we do not need the guessing later. I wouldn't bother poking those who are known to mark stable patches though.
Yup, mm/ needs far less poking that XFS (for example).
What makes mm/ so good about this is that it's a rather small set of devs who are good at marking things for stable. As long as the commit came from one of these "core" mm/ folks it's almost guaranteed to have proper stable tags.
But mm/ commits don't come only from these people. Here's a concrete example we can discuss:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?i...
This was merged in a few days ago, and seems relevant for older kernel trees as well. Should it not have a stable tag?