[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877emakynf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 16:03:00 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxram@...ibm.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
shuah@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.16 234/279] x86/pkeys/selftests: Adjust the self-test to fresh distros that export the pkeys ABI
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:36:43PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 06/18/2018 10:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > 4.16-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>
>> So I was wondering, why backport such a considerable number of
>> *selftests* to stable, given the stable policy? Surely selftests don't
>> affect the kernel itself breaking for users?
>
> These came in as part of Sasha's "backport fixes" tool. It can't hurt
> to add selftest fixes/updates to stable kernels, as for some people,
> they only run the selftests for the specific kernel they are building.
> While others run selftests for the latest kernel on older kernels, both
> of which are valid ways of testing.
I don't have a problem with these sort of patches being backported, but
it seems like Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.txt could use an
update?
I honestly don't know what the rules are anymore.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists