Re: Policy regarding linux-next only changes

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 2:49 PM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If maintainers were more responding to patches that help debugging difficult problems /
> avoiding stupid behaviors, many of these patches would not have been staying as
> "linux-next only" patches.

Did you get an agreement from others (e.g. from Mark himself or those
maintainers), or not?

As I mentioned to you last time in the thread that Gary linked, the
standard linux-next rules do not allow for this. Of course, rules can
bent (or changed) when there is a need, but it sounds to me like you
are surprising others, even maintainers of related code, by
unilaterally adding whatever patches you deem important, without prior
agreement.

If you think something is really important, and there was disagreement
(I don't know the context), then you should try to work with others to
make them see why it is important, e.g. bring it to the Ksummit list,
to LPC, escalate it, etc. But doing things unilaterally breaks the
trust, especially when it is not the first time.

And why do you say fuzzers cannot test whatever tree you need? Can you
please elaborate what the actual problem is? Maybe it can be solved in
another way?

(Cc'ing Greg here too since I see from your threads that you discussed
with him patches for fuzzing in the past several times.)

Cheers,
Miguel