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=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 94DD0C11F66 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:30:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789D161374 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:30:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239593AbhGNPdk (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:33:40 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36742 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232419AbhGNPdj (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:33:39 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A22C6613C5; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:30:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1626276647; bh=LrE32zCSfmq/HRGIAaJzLKDx2mJFgMfjgbIdQislivY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FUl5UN8dZ9XIhWJFag+7K4uDQ0/dveCjPpqaDCPzRJGQ0guJ4Sae3MwiD9A7Fq5bX BJ4cMJSaUGUY4MIZvj5HynHIIvncT4gxhpEfJGGX081P2wEr5BSJNt9SrKtqhtlFIY /8oxG1D+PCj5OylvXStbfCLqOyPrLZSnRXg+6XZQKtDsgssf+/lvR7FhmIBaPN74f2 4iElhFqmNkuRRIvcK+MV6cgKyGN8Rnz/Zi8DTF1SVS58gCJ5gjwJYiPsrS0l/JuErk XPegBFYCzeWPtvqYD3kajGdsx2bdjgfO14Yf20hq7ENx1bk8modZCz/YfnKRjpk7n1 CRggQx51iMyyA== Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:30:46 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , 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=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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