On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 17:30:44 -0800 SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 10:49:07 -0800 Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 10:22:44 +0100 "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My main concern was - > > > > A fixes tag means it might get auto backported to stable kernels too, > > > > > > Not in the MM world -- IIRC. I think there is the agreement, that we > > > decide what should go into stable and what not. > > > > > > Andrew can correct me if my memory is wrong. > > > > Yes, -stable maintainers have been asked to only backport patches where > > the MM developers asked for that, with cc:stable. There may be > > slipups, but as far as I know this is working. > > > > I don't actually know how they determine which patches need this > > special treatment. Pathname? Signed-off-by:akpm? > > I guess it is pathname, based on ignore_list file [1] of stable-queue repo. > > [1] > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list#n16 > Oh, that's a bit sad. - other trees sometimes mess with mm/ and they probably aren't aware that they need an explicit cc:stable. - misses drivers/block/zram and probably various other things that the MM team maintains. Oh well, I guess simple mm/* coverage is good enough. But I do worry a little that useful fixes coming into mm/ via other trees without cc:stable will get missed.
