Re: 5.13.2-rc and others have many not for stable

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:35:29AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Another solution (and these don't have to be mutually exclusive) might
> be for maintainers can explicitly state that certain patches shouldn't
> be backported into stable kernels.  I think having an explicit
> "No-Backport: <Reason>" might be useful, since it documents why a
> maintainer requested that the patch not be backported, and being an
> explicit tag, it makes it clear that it wasn't just a case of the
> developer forgetting the "Cc: stable" tag.  This makes it much better
> than implicit rules such as "If from: akpm then don't backport" hidden
> in various stable maintainers' scripts.

The number of valid cases where someone puts a "Fixes:" tag, and that
patch should NOT be backported is really really slim.  Why would you put
that tag and not want to have known-broken kernels fixed?

If it really is not an issue, just do not put the "Fixes:" tag?

thanks,

greg k-h