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=-6.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 208EBC11F66 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1BA56128D for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:46:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B1BA56128D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 019356B0075; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id F0B286B0078; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id DAC9B6B0083; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0041.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.41]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE9F6B0075 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FCD253D5 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:46:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78361620330.21.2B34C18 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6B9F00038F for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:46:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00E1D61374; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:46:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1626277584; bh=z+ygMX861WLNXQe7kWq6asnSgjE1WJbUM8xAE/4rwEI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=F7JrF/Sj6btztkaPSgzsNH4JYCD4X8u0p6JM2dYd6FGbeONayJoyHDUdr9Uff6O1l IjCEn55LB0NbvvFGBFCxkiR71s0q+d2fqBZTtHWx1fO3IsZ+UthlRCTTkEsl6AfCmY dGXGnfiw9F+a006JbNHhlszWsMxYFL0CyqyFpFMA= Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:46:22 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" 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: Authentication-Results: imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.s=korg header.b="F7JrF/Sj"; spf=pass (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of gregkh@linuxfoundation.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Stat-Signature: 1i717zob5q5sny75n1yqxj3kkkttxyx5 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4C6B9F00038F X-HE-Tag: 1626277585-451739 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, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:35:29AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > Another solution (and these don't have to be mutually exclusive) might > be for maintainers can explicitly state that certain patches shouldn't > be backported into stable kernels. I think having an explicit > "No-Backport: " might be useful, since it documents why a > maintainer requested that the patch not be backported, and being an > explicit tag, it makes it clear that it wasn't just a case of the > developer forgetting the "Cc: stable" tag. This makes it much better > than implicit rules such as "If from: akpm then don't backport" hidden > in various stable maintainers' scripts. 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? thanks, greg k-h