Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:30:46 -0400 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: 5.13.2-rc and others have many not for stable |
| |
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:52:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >On Tue 13-07-21 18:28:13, Andrew Morton wrote: >> At present this -stable >> promiscuity is overriding the (sometime carefully) considered decisions >> of the MM developers, and that's a bit scary. > >Not only scary, it is also a waste of precious time of those who >carefuly evaluate stable tree backports.
I'm just as concerned with the other direction: we end up missing quite a lot of patches that are needed in practice, and no one is circling back to make sure that we have everything we need.
I took a peek at SUSE's tree to see how things work there, and looking at the very latest mm/ commit:
commit c8c7b321edcf7a7e8c22dc66e0366f72aa2390f0 Author: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> Date: Tue May 4 11:12:10 2021 +0200
mm: memcontrol: fix cpuhotplug statistics flushing (bsc#1185606).
suse-commit: 3bba386a33fac144abf2507554cb21552acb16af
This seems to be commit a3d4c05a4474 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cpuhotplug statistics flushing") upstream, and I assume that it was picked because it fixed a real bug someone cares about.
I can maybe understand that at the time that the patch was written/committed it didn't seem like stable@ material and thus there was no cc to stable.
But once someone realized it needs to be backported, why weren't we told to take it into stable too?
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |