Re: [PATCH 6.3 00/13] 6.3.12-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 11:56:11AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 04.07.23 10:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:13:03PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> >> On 04/07/23 1:54 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> While running LTP hugetlb testing on x86 the following kernel BUG noticed
> >>>>> on running stable-rc 6.3.12-rc1.
> >>
> >> Have you looked at Patch 9 of this series:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/2023070416-wow-phrasing-b92c@gregkh/T/#m12068530e846ac8b9668bd83941d82ec3f22ac15
> >>
> >> Looks very much related, it also has a note on Backporting.
> >> As I think it could be related, I am sharing this.(But haven't tested
> >> anything)
> > 
> > Yes, that's the offending patch.  I should have read over the full
> > changelogs before doing bisection, but bisection/test proved that this
> > was not correct for 6.3.y at this point in time.
> 
> FWIW, I'm preparing a few small tweaks for
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst (to be submitted after the
> merge window). I among others consider adding something like this that
> might help avoiding this situation:
> 
> ```
> To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the
> following format:
> 
> .. code-block:: none
> 
>      Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # after 4 weeks in mainline
> 
> For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`,
> just add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point
> out known problems:
> 
> .. code-block:: none
> 
>      Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # see patch description, needs
> adjustments for 6.3 and earlier
> 
> ```
> 
> Greg, if this is stupid or in case you want it to say something else,
> just say so.

That looks great, hopefully people notice this.  We still have a huge
number of people refusing to even put cc: stable in a patch, let alone
these extra hints :)

thanks,

greg k-h