Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:46:14 -0400 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix hugetlb page migration/fault race causing SIGBUS |
| |
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!
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |