On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 06:43:45 -0500 Sasha Levin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > 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. > > How should we improve the filter? mm/ AND signed off by akpm? I think just signed-off-by:akpm please. That way, mm fixes which come in via other trees without cc:stable get backported. Obviously we'd prefer that such patches get appropriate consideration by the MM developers but sometimes other-tree people aren't that cooperative. In this case it's better to backport the thing rather than missing a fix?
