Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes

[Sasha Levin]

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/DM5PR2101MB1032AB19B489D46B717B50D4FBBB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/DM5PR2101MB10327FA0A7E0D2C901E33B79FBBB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> 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?