Tweak some of the rule text to make things more straight forward, with
the goal to stick closely to the intend of the old text:
* put the "it or equivalent fix must be ustream" rule at the top, as
it's one of the most important ones that at the same time often seems
to be missed by developers.
* "It must fix only one thing" was dropped, as that is almost always a
thing that needs to be handled earlier when the change is mainlined.
Furthermore, this is already indirectly covered by the "Separate your
changes" section in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst which
the rules already point to.
* six other rules are in the end one rule with clarifications; structure
the text accordingly to make it a lot easier to follow and understand
the intend.
CC: Greg KH <[email protected]>
CC: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 39 +++++++++----------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 6e4026dd6882..85d5d2368034 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -6,31 +6,30 @@ Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
"-stable" tree:
+ - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
- It must be obviously correct and tested.
- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
- - It must fix only one thing.
- - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
- problem..." type thing).
- - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
- marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
- security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
- critical.
- - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
- be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
- As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
- regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
- maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
- exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
- - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
- - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
- race can be exploited is also provided.
- - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
- whitespace cleanups, etc).
- It must follow the
:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
rules.
- - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
-
+ - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
+ To elaborate on the former:
+
+ - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
+ issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
+ CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
+ critical.
+ - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
+ be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
+ As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
+ regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
+ maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
+ exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
+ - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race
+ condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also
+ provided.
+ - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace
+ cleanups, etc).
Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
----------------------------------------------------
--
2.40.1
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:12PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Tweak some of the rule text to make things more straight forward, with
> the goal to stick closely to the intend of the old text:
>
> * put the "it or equivalent fix must be ustream" rule at the top, as
> it's one of the most important ones that at the same time often seems
> to be missed by developers.
> * "It must fix only one thing" was dropped, as that is almost always a
> thing that needs to be handled earlier when the change is mainlined.
> Furthermore, this is already indirectly covered by the "Separate your
> changes" section in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst which
> the rules already point to.
> * six other rules are in the end one rule with clarifications; structure
> the text accordingly to make it a lot easier to follow and understand
> the intend.
>
> CC: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> CC: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
> CC: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 39 +++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index 6e4026dd6882..85d5d2368034 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -6,31 +6,30 @@ Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
> "-stable" tree:
>
> + - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
> - It must be obviously correct and tested.
> - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> - - It must fix only one thing.
> - - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
> - problem..." type thing).
> - - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
> - marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
> - security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
> - critical.
> - - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
> - be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
> - As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
> - regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
> - maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
> - exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
> - - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
> - - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
> - race can be exploited is also provided.
> - - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
> - whitespace cleanups, etc).
> - It must follow the
> :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
> rules.
> - - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
> -
> + - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
> + To elaborate on the former:
> +
> + - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
> + issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
> + CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
> + critical.
> + - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
> + be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
> + As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
> + regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
> + maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
> + exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
> + - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race
> + condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also
> + provided.
> + - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace
> + cleanups, etc).
>
> Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
> ----------------------------------------------------
Ah, it's nice to see that mainline also enforces the "must do one
thing", I think when I originally wrote this, it didn't :)
Again, all looks great to me, I'll be glad to take it.
thanks,
greg k-h