On Tue 27-08-19 19:06:18, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:10:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sat 24-08-19 23:23:07, Thomas Backlund wrote:
Den 24-08-2019 kl. 22:57, skrev Andrew Morton:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 19:15:23 +0000 Roman Gushchin guro@fb.com wrote:
> Fixes: 766a4c19d880 ("mm/memcontrol.c: keep local VM counters in sync with the hierarchical ones") > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin guro@fb.com > Cc: Yafang Shao laoar.shao@gmail.com > Cc: Johannes Weiner hannes@cmpxchg.org > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. Please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html for how to do this properly.
Oh, I'm sorry, will read and follow next time. Thanks!
766a4c19d880 is not present in 5.2 so no -stable backport is needed, yes?
Unfortunately it got added in 5.2.7, so backport is needed.
yet another example of patch not marked for stable backported to the stable tree. yay...
If you do not want autobot to pick up patches for specific subsystems/files, just let us know and we will add them to the blacklist.
Done that on several occasions over last year and so. I always get "yep we are going to black list" and whoops and we are back there with patches going to stable like nothing happened. We've been through this discussion so many times I am tired of it and to be honest I simply do not care anymore.
I will keep encouraging people to mark patches for stable but I do not give a wee bit about any reports for the stable tree. Nor do I care whether something made it in and we should be careful to mark another patch for stable as a fixup like this one.