lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 5.13.2-rc and others have many not for stable
    On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:18:14AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:31:57 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
    > > > > So far, all automated testing seems to
    > > > > show that there are no regressions in these releases with these commits
    > > > > in them. If there was a problem, how would it show up?
    > > > >
    > > > > And as far as I know, mm/ stuff is still not triggered by the AUTOSEL
    > > > > bot, but that is not what caused this commit to be added to a stable
    > > > > release.
    > > > >
    > > > > Trying to keep a "do not apply" list for Fixes: tags only is much harder
    > > > > for both of us as we do these semi-manually and review them
    > > > > individually. Trying to remember what subsystem only does Fixes tags
    > > > > yet really doesn't mean it is an impossible task.
    > > >
    > > > Well, it shouldn't be super hard to skip all patches which have Fixes:,
    > > > Signed-off-by:akpm and no cc:stable?
    > >
    > > Ok, I will do this now (goes and writes this down...)
    > >
    > > 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...)
    >

    This one at least is theoritical in nature for a backport because
    PREEMPT_RT cannot be selected as no arch defines ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
    yet. If is was heading to any stable branch, it would be under
    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-stable-rt.git/.
    The latest kernel there is v5.10-rt and the Fixes tag is for 5.11 so that
    fix would be ignored.

    --
    Mel Gorman
    SUSE Labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-07-15 12:40    [W:2.193 / U:0.848 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site