Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f3d0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a16csp578239pxv; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:24:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwWVv+5y0s8/Pl79EN6/JwYMLC2rfSbXaS6xEmLIqQMDDc7I8IlzMQcygW08ff2b8Z8PqGs X-Received: by 2002:a6b:d20c:: with SMTP id q12mr7695296iob.59.1626283461124; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:24:21 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1626283461; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ARWIZnWLvVGLOj9Vm4oOiVGnCJRQ9XjFolY9z/7XjUBrf+qntLsxFmODVyRpHKZpwE kImFmI88hKDUmqyyPKnr+5e6UvR6LLGn7pYnex4tXw8o4u1va1w7ivxwqqgNE8p2FHVF MbR6rrrIapmcve4peyaCMEZcdyKIRWd5V/2As3aPuU5e5flblEzC1dPMCpJuLiH75fiK IfmMBQ6br7iVujHVeNTNoV55Et9ZAuzx2pzU9+Q1586tmmfrzHFU8ue/C4YwGDMSHoq1 ELxJMpeNjWHPGtLUB93CFgE+okCbWtlVGjCgPyK0J6vYp5ivp+K8i+VoF8X7fFl8G8FI ea3A== 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; bh=nsVA54VAZIhORgzwAXqxy1BfXlG0uBMjYL+ScGrCYUA=; b=LlO49dHuz51n5wEzY+6hE7oQ0uAKAAZ5E/14N3N7AqNF+M41uTuqsD4pul5+18Gttm PIoSHHS8piF2C2JxXzkBykeHC4xQboHFWlfMdRlNV56zC0m7D/NiamuaYyfB7mp7z1UA EGqENxGhp7VCgpjhj/AHScZVI+BTTqwhvdFHPNduwike3NqvdTvtwvPhfWAhbL/Lju3z Co1sw3JtRELzJZ+hzjfiaeN2fbrOGMaK3kup3BE0TC7B2NeAlqoKZKWEYuKzVOtwa5Bt D/xZh41JZxXVwIheYwZ0NM5LtRXypJ7ytowHluiFVDQ5RqWcTMkppaPirurJYIV+TmTU IRAg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; 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 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j5si2892626iom.105.2021.07.14.10.24.07; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:24:21 -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; 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 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229745AbhGNRZJ (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:25:09 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:32785 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229592AbhGNRZJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:25:09 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org (96-65-121-81-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [96.65.121.81]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 16EHLxpS021655 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:22:00 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 59F2A4202F5; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:21:59 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Greg Kroah-Hartman 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 05:46:22PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 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? I think it really boils down to what the tags are supposed to mean and what do they imply. The argument from the other side is if the Stable maintainers are interpreting the Fixes: tag as an implicit "CC: stable", why should we have the "Cc: stable" tag at all in that case? We could also have the policy that in the case where you have a fix for a bug, but it's super subtle, and shouldn't be automatically backported, that the this should be explained in the commit, e.g., This commit fixes a bug in "1adeadbeef33: lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" but it is touching code which subtle and quick to anger, the bug isn't all that serious. So please don't backport it automatically; someone should manually do the backport and run the fooblat test before sumitting it to the stable maintainers. Andrew seems to be of the opinion that these sorts of cases are very common. I don't have enough data to have a strong opinion either way. But if you are right that it is a rare case, then sure, simply omitting the Fixes: tag and using text in the commit description would work. We just need to agree that this is the convention that we all shoulf be using. I still wonder though what's the point of having the "Cc: stable" tag if it's implicitly assumed to be there if there is a Fixes: tagle. Cheers, - Ted