Re: stable-kernel-rules was Re: fs/bcachefs/

[Kent Overstreet]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 08:19:06PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Personally I think we are not taking enough, and are still missing real
> > > fixes.  Overall, this is only a very small % of what goes into Linus's
> > > tree every day, so by that measure alone, we know we are missing things.
> > 
> > What % of what goes into Linus's tree do you think fits within the rules
> > stated in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst ? I don't know but
> > "very small" would be my guess, so we should be fine as it is?
> > 
> > Or are the rules actually still being observed? I doubt e.g. many of the
> > AUTOSEL backports fit them? Should we rename the file to
> > stable-rules-nonsense.rst?
> 
> There seems to be just one rule being observed: "It or an equivalent
> fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).". Every other rule is
> broken pretty much all the time.
> 
> AUTOSEL is a problem.
> 
> Plus there's problem with dependencies -- if a patch A is need for fix
> B, the rules pretty much go out of the window, huge patches are
> applied, whitespace fixes are applied, etc.
> 
> There are even known-bad patches being applied, and then
> reverted. Greg explained that it heps his process somehow.

This seems to be a pretty consistent theme theme - thins are done baesd
on whatever makes Greg's process easier, not input from the people
stable ought to be working with. Pretty questionable set of priorities
if you ask me.