On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:15 PM Eric W. Biederman ebiederm@xmission.com wrote:
Kyle Huey me@kylehuey.com writes:
Since this is taken care of now, AFAICT, I do have one additional question. I reported the regression to LKML a day or so before 5.15.3 was cut. What should I have noticed to see that the regressing changeset was going to 5.15 and where should I have said "hey please don't ship this on 5.15 yet"?
I'd like to know what to do next time :)
When patches are added to the stable tree they are posted for review.
I was Cc'd on a couple of them because of this discussion. The list appear to be "stable-commits@vger.kernel.org". Feedback is requested to go to "stable@vger.kernel.org". So I believe this conversation is enough to remove the unnecessary patches before they make it to a stable release.
The boiler plate looks like:
Cc: stable-commits@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 19:11:53 +0100 (10 hours, 58 minutes, 56 seconds ago)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
exit/syscall_user_dispatch: Send ordinary signals on failureto the 5.15-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git%3Ba=su...
The filename of the patch is: exit-syscall_user_dispatch-send-ordinary-signals-on-failure.patch and it can be found in the queue-5.15 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let stable@vger.kernel.org know about it.
I hope that helps.
Eric
So if I understand this correctly the best (or maybe even only) way to stop a regressing changeset from making it into a stable release is to separately search/watch the stable mailing list for the changeset in question?
- Kyle