On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:49:24PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >On Tue 17-04-18 14:24:54, Petr Mladek wrote: >[...] >> Back to the trend. Last week I got autosel mails even for >> patches that were still being discussed, had issues, and >> were far from upstream: >> >> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/dm5pr2101mb1032ab19b489d46b717b50d4fb...@dm5pr2101mb1032.namprd21.prod.outlook.com >> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/dm5pr2101mb10327fa0a7e0d2c901e33b79fb...@dm5pr2101mb1032.namprd21.prod.outlook.com >> >> It might be a good idea if the mail asked to add Fixes: tag >> or stable mailing list. But the mail suggested to add the >> unfinished patch into stable branch directly (even before >> upstreaming?). > >Well, I think that poking subsystems which ignore stable trees with such >emails early during review might be quite helpful. Maybe people start >marking for stable and we do not need the guessing later. I wouldn't >bother poking those who are known to mark stable patches though.
Yup, mm/ needs far less poking that XFS (for example). What makes mm/ so good about this is that it's a rather small set of devs who are good at marking things for stable. As long as the commit came from one of these "core" mm/ folks it's almost guaranteed to have proper stable tags. But mm/ commits don't come only from these people. Here's a concrete example we can discuss: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c61611f70958d86f659bca25c02ae69413747a8d This was merged in a few days ago, and seems relevant for older kernel trees as well. Should it not have a stable tag?
