From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FC7C12002 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:09:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2C9613CB for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:09:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6E2C9613CB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B8ED76B0092; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B65376B0096; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:09:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A2DB48D0002; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:09:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0132.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.132]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6EF6B0092 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEDB18026B3E for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:09:13 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78362433786.14.09DE4F1 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7D1500C701 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B46BF613CC; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:09:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1626296952; bh=hHlXOWAlgpR5zYXZWRZLzEhjTkhsaaifQTA1+gqRSu4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=y44sm/PmDvlcm+SYUSSbjyrMdahlB1dXzuDoxpGIElSAhhuyE/IxYd8wq7baRA0Sk HNL7tgdBEaKQOd/hZSXZsY9cGjpHhqQ7x9qLAjaLew4dlqO+y7G4fKolAExtHlUI3w R3zDLSDN9Ash9MzS9pVhT547n9ygj/6rb7PJraZg= Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 14:09:11 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Sasha Levin , 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: <20210714140911.6c45f8f4a9b129ed36bb9d06@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <2b1b798e-8449-11e-e2a1-daf6a341409b@google.com> <20210713182813.2fdd57075a732c229f901140@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: EE7D1500C701 X-Stat-Signature: j4ue19m3re19gm7innam173sngaqoimz Authentication-Results: imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b="y44sm/Pm"; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org X-HE-Tag: 1626296952-415785 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:23:50 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > But it really feels odd that you all take the time to add a "Hey, this > > fixes this specific commit!" tag in the changelog, yet you do not > > actually want to go and fix the kernels that have that commit in it. > > This is an odd signal to others that watch the changelogs for context > > clues. Perhaps you might not want to do that anymore. > > I looked at some of these patches and it seems really odd to me that you > all are marking them with Fixes: tags, but do not want them backported. > > First example is babbbdd08af9 ("mm/huge_memory.c: don't discard hugepage > if other processes are mapping it") > > Why is this not ok to backport? > > Also what about e6be37b2e7bd ("mm/huge_memory.c: add missing read-only > THP checking in transparent_hugepage_enabled()")? > > And 41eb5df1cbc9 ("mm: memcg/slab: properly set up gfp flags for objcg > pointer array")? > > And 6acfb5ba150c ("mm: migrate: fix missing update page_private to > hugetlb_page_subpool")? > > And 832b50725373 ("mm: mmap_lock: use local locks instead of disabling > preemption")? (the RT people want that...) > > And f7ec104458e0 ("mm/page_alloc: fix counting of managed_pages")? > > Do you want to rely on systems where these fixes are not applied? > > I can understand if you all want to send them to us later after they > have been "tested out" in Linus's tree, that's fine, but to just not > want them applied at all feels odd to me. Broadly speaking: end-user impact. If we don't have reports of the issue causing a user-visible problem and we don't expect such things to occur, don't backport. Why risk causing some regression when we cannot identify any benefit? (and boy do my fingers get tired asking people to describe the user-visible effects of the bug they claim to have fixed!) Of course, screwups can happen and user-useful patches may be passed over.