Date:   Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:41:42 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AUTOSEL process
Message-ID: <ZAyFFtORBosdarMr@sashalap>
References: <Y/y70zJj4kjOVfXa@sashalap>
 <Y/zswi91axMN8OsA@sol.localdomain>
 <Y/zxKOBTLXFjSVyI@sol.localdomain>
 <Y/0U8tpNkgePu00M@sashalap>
 <Y/0i5pGYjrVw59Kk@gmail.com>
 <Y/0wMiOwoeLcFefc@sashalap>
 <Y/1LlA5WogOAPBNv@gmail.com>
 <Y/1em4ygHgSjIYau@sashalap>
 <Y/136zpJSWx96YEe@sol.localdomain>
 <ZAu4GE0q4jzRI+F6@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZAu4GE0q4jzRI+F6@sol.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:07:04PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 07:41:31PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>
>> Well, probably more common is that prerequisites are in the same patchset, and
>> the prerequisites are tagged for stable too.  Whereas AUTOSEL often just picks
>> patch X of N.  Also, developers and maintainers who tag patches for stable are
>> probably more likely to help with the stable process in general and make sure
>> patches are backported correctly...
>>
>> Anyway, the point is, AUTOSEL needs to be fixed to stop inappropriately
>> cherry-picking patch X of N so often.
>>
>
>... and AUTOSEL strikes again, with the 6.1 and 6.2 kernels currently crashing
>whenever a block device is removed, due to patches 1 and 3 of a 3-patch series
>being AUTOSEL'ed (on the same day I started this discussion, no less):
>
>https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/CAOCAAm4reGhz400DSVrh0BetYD3Ljr2CZen7_3D4gXYYdB4SKQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
>
>Oh sorry, ignore this, it's just an anecdotal example.

Yes, clearly a problem with AUTOSEL and not with how sad the testing
story is for stable releases.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha