[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190809151718.d285cd1f6d0f1cf02cb93dc8@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:17:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ltp@...ts.linux.it,
Li Wang <liwang@...hat.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>, xishi.qiuxishi@...baba-inc.com,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix hugetlb page migration/fault race
causing SIGBUS
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:46:33 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Maybe we should introduce the Fixes-no-stable: tag. That should get
> > their attention.
>
> No please, Fixes shouldn't be really tight to any stable tree rules. It
> is a very useful indication of which commit has introduced bug/problem
> or whatever that the patch follows up to. We in Suse are using this tag
> to evaluate potential fixes as the stable is not reliable. We could live
> with Fixes-no-stable or whatever other name but does it really makes
> sense to complicate the existing state when stable maintainers are doing
> whatever they want anyway? Does a tag like that force AI from selecting
> a patch? I am not really convinced.
It should work if we ask stable trees maintainers not to backport
such patches.
Sasha, please don't backport patches which are marked Fixes-no-stable:
and which lack a cc:stable tag.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists