On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:18:14AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:31:57 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
So far, all automated testing seems to show that there are no regressions in these releases with these commits in them. If there was a problem, how would it show up?
And as far as I know, mm/ stuff is still not triggered by the AUTOSEL bot, but that is not what caused this commit to be added to a stable release.
Trying to keep a "do not apply" list for Fixes: tags only is much harder for both of us as we do these semi-manually and review them individually. Trying to remember what subsystem only does Fixes tags yet really doesn't mean it is an impossible task.
Well, it shouldn't be super hard to skip all patches which have Fixes:, Signed-off-by:akpm and no cc:stable?
Ok, I will do this now (goes and writes this down...)
But it really feels odd that you all take the time to add a "Hey, this fixes this specific commit!" tag in the changelog, yet you do not actually want to go and fix the kernels that have that commit in it. This is an odd signal to others that watch the changelogs for context clues. Perhaps you might not want to do that anymore.
I looked at some of these patches and it seems really odd to me that you all are marking them with Fixes: tags, but do not want them backported.
First example is babbbdd08af9 ("mm/huge_memory.c: don't discard hugepage if other processes are mapping it")
Why is this not ok to backport?
Also what about e6be37b2e7bd ("mm/huge_memory.c: add missing read-only THP checking in transparent_hugepage_enabled()")?
And 41eb5df1cbc9 ("mm: memcg/slab: properly set up gfp flags for objcg pointer array")?
And 6acfb5ba150c ("mm: migrate: fix missing update page_private to hugetlb_page_subpool")?
And 832b50725373 ("mm: mmap_lock: use local locks instead of disabling preemption")? (the RT people want that...)
This one at least is theoritical in nature for a backport because PREEMPT_RT cannot be selected as no arch defines ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT yet. If is was heading to any stable branch, it would be under https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-stable-rt.git/. The latest kernel there is v5.10-rt and the Fixes tag is for 5.11 so that fix would be ignored.