Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix hugetlb page migration/fault race causing SIGBUS

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Sun 11-08-19 19:46:14, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:46:33 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Maybe we should introduce the Fixes-no-stable: tag.  That should get
> > > > their attention.
> > > 
> > > No please, Fixes shouldn't be really tight to any stable tree rules. It
> > > is a very useful indication of which commit has introduced bug/problem
> > > or whatever that the patch follows up to. We in Suse are using this tag
> > > to evaluate potential fixes as the stable is not reliable. We could live
> > > with Fixes-no-stable or whatever other name but does it really makes
> > > sense to complicate the existing state when stable maintainers are doing
> > > whatever they want anyway? Does a tag like that force AI from selecting
> > > a patch? I am not really convinced.
> > 
> > It should work if we ask stable trees maintainers not to backport
> > such patches.
> > 
> > Sasha, please don't backport patches which are marked Fixes-no-stable:
> > and which lack a cc:stable tag.
> 
> I'll add it to my filter, thank you!

I would really prefer to stick with Fixes: tag and stable only picking
up cc: stable patches. I really hate to see workarounds for sensible
workflows (marking the Fixes) just because we are trying to hide
something from stable maintainers. Seriously, if stable maintainers have
a different idea about what should be backported, it is their call. They
are the ones to deal with regressions and the backporting effort in
those cases of disagreement.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs