Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f3d0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a16csp501421pxv; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTdPERazLewE1nmaopQpD7Xp2SpZz297ojvO7c4Ad7L5e4v/Xj4qShSpUjsOQAxNzM0kuV X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cd96:: with SMTP id x22mr14869425edv.102.1626277677316; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1626277677; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=OgxePBqjL3LxwyQm+Lh3FKIUsKw6d4eShr9+qlwLYEr1UN7cIoc9r/jq0DXeW3ZZYG C8hAXaalnq/JI4X+p4Pec/ps11OfGVK7JiFMsLsH5/JHxeQQrwpuIC2GnOiJdAunNDjy HT8osxCUkmZvenJWLNIInfI+FpBKCm26dczWoo9nb47nFuiCnZ8tn2w+mGZPU6viXOW2 2AE+Qmlu3vKdlal3vGKJM8jw+nkP5ynCF9kO5yyYq6WIo6CB8ppDevoSZyokPcLHpI9r qgWeCtdMuU+owTgNzUbl/Dq78wQlCDfAw9ST5H+FioiTU6i+uGwmK2Y6B+Ljvf2n/wfy 7HGA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=lOZ+3KVsaRcHLvQTiKmqbuqkbKdfPMEcY3nFX4sF4EM=; b=EcN1aKx4qU5oRkMlW5gbn13Eooag3TfjVN2p6zVVStdBnbfbL01mXm0yN56OUvzj7k shRuBMYMPKx4Vla/gtjMlKfz5uFXSDh8Cz2PYcFgDQrEnidOxH09bcuvk0/6eJipTl5V 1p7pHMMTt8Z7342/duLR5Ztd/HskyydxGOYmnYPPdOt7zCkVSBTYLrcpBZTDfFUab9GL JjhAtmOu/mAgRrOOWufJqT9SJqfUsjbOEAEu2cLawIuQrCPXO9qlfk/nKLrjM7h6NQMI a87qX/Aa99nN6NKl3w+rU5obVyN1dP4TwxPHAwJymEejEkpuxMrm4nnBShnkVtpeOp8M noqA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.s=korg header.b="F7JrF/Sj"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o21si3094497edc.577.2021.07.14.08.47.33; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.s=korg header.b="F7JrF/Sj"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232417AbhGNPtR (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:49:17 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:40484 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232318AbhGNPtQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:49:16 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00E1D61374; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:46:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1626277584; bh=z+ygMX861WLNXQe7kWq6asnSgjE1WJbUM8xAE/4rwEI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=F7JrF/Sj6btztkaPSgzsNH4JYCD4X8u0p6JM2dYd6FGbeONayJoyHDUdr9Uff6O1l IjCEn55LB0NbvvFGBFCxkiR71s0q+d2fqBZTtHWx1fO3IsZ+UthlRCTTkEsl6AfCmY dGXGnfiw9F+a006JbNHhlszWsMxYFL0CyqyFpFMA= Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:46:22 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Cc: Sasha Levin , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Hugh Dickins , Linus Torvalds , Mike Kravetz , Miaohe Lin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 5.13.2-rc and others have many not for stable Message-ID: References: <2b1b798e-8449-11e-e2a1-daf6a341409b@google.com> <20210713182813.2fdd57075a732c229f901140@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:35:29AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > Another solution (and these don't have to be mutually exclusive) might > be for maintainers can explicitly state that certain patches shouldn't > be backported into stable kernels. I think having an explicit > "No-Backport: " might be useful, since it documents why a > maintainer requested that the patch not be backported, and being an > explicit tag, it makes it clear that it wasn't just a case of the > developer forgetting the "Cc: stable" tag. This makes it much better > than implicit rules such as "If from: akpm then don't backport" hidden > in various stable maintainers' scripts. The number of valid cases where someone puts a "Fixes:" tag, and that patch should NOT be backported is really really slim. Why would you put that tag and not want to have known-broken kernels fixed? If it really is not an issue, just do not put the "Fixes:" tag? thanks, greg k-h