On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:57:38AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:

> This isn't a viable approach.  Firstly stable review is less thorough
> than upstream review because the review mostly goes "yes, I already
> reviewed this in upstream".  Secondly, if the upstream review didn't
> catch the problems why would we suddenly catch them in a stable review?

Some of the stable trees don't even want the review - the -ckt ones for
example don't seem to leave any gap between sending out the "this patch
will be added" mails and the applied mails and I guess they're happy
with the results (I have to confess I killfiled their mails at some
point).

> The fact that possibly no-one reviewed the upstream patch indicates the
> need for a better upstream process (so something like we now have in
> SCSI which is no patches applied without one review tag), but expecting
> stable to fix our upstream process isn't going to work.

I think the concern here is fixes that are valid upstream but rely on
context that hasn't been backported.