Re: [PATCH crypto-stable v3 1/2] crypto: arch/lib - limit simd usage to 4k chunks

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 20:42, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:18:15AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > FYI: you shouldn't cc stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx directly on your patches,
> > or add the cc: line. Only patches that are already in Linus' tree
> > should be sent there.
>
> Not true at all, please read:
>     https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> for how to do this properly.  Please do not spread incorrect
> information.
>
> And Jason did this properly, he put cc: stable@ in the s-o-b area and
> all is good, I will pick up this patch once it hits Linus's tree.
>
> And there is no problem actually sending the patch to stable@vger while
> under development like this, as it gives me a heads-up that something is
> coming, and is trivial to filter out.
>
> If you really want to be nice, you can just do:
>         cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
> which goes to /dev/null on kernel.org, so no email will be sent to any
> list, but my scripts still pick it up.  But no real need to do that,
> it's fine.
>

OK, thanks for clearing this up.

So does this mean you have stopped sending out 'formletter'
auto-replies for patches that were sent out to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
directly, telling people not to do that?

> > Also, the fixes tags are really quite sufficient.
>
> No it is not, I have had to dig out patches more and more because people
> do NOT put the cc: stable and only put Fixes:, which is not a good thing
> as I then have to "guess" what the maintainer/developer ment.
>
> Be explicit if you know it, cc: stable please.
>

OK

> > In fact, it is
> > actually rather difficult these days to prevent something from being
> > taken into -stable if the bots notice that it applies cleanly.
>
> Those "bots" are still driven by a lot of human work, please make it
> easy on us whenever possible.
>

Sure.