[RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the
first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things
that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts.
So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see
if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly
their domain.

If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply
drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate
and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while
adjusting things in good faith.

At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people
like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Thorsten Leemhuis (3):
  docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention other usages for stable tag
    comments
  docs: stable-kernel-rules: make rule section more straight forward
  docs: stable-kernel-rules: improve structure to optimize reading flow

 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 189 ++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)


base-commit: 016571b6d52deb473676fb4d24baf8ed3667ae21
-- 
2.40.1

[RFC PATCH v1 1/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention other usages for stable tag comments

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Document how to delay backporting or send a note to the stable team
using shell-style inline comments attached to stable tags.

CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 51df1197d5ab..6e4026dd6882 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -55,9 +55,10 @@ To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
 
      Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
 
-in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
-the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
-or subsystem maintainer.
+in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style
+inline comment (see below for details). Once the patch is merged it will be
+applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the
+author or subsystem maintainer.
 
 .. _option_2:
 
@@ -139,6 +140,21 @@ The tag has the meaning of:
 
 For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
 
+To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
+format:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
+
+For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, just
+add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known
+problems:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
+
 Following the submission:
 
  - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention other usages for stable tag comments

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:11PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Document how to delay backporting or send a note to the stable team
> using shell-style inline comments attached to stable tags.
> 
> CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index 51df1197d5ab..6e4026dd6882 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -55,9 +55,10 @@ To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
>  
>       Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>  
> -in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
> -the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
> -or subsystem maintainer.
> +in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style

Is that how a ';' is really used?  I never can remember, so it's an
honest question here :)

> +inline comment (see below for details). Once the patch is merged it will be
> +applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the
> +author or subsystem maintainer.
>  
>  .. _option_2:
>  
> @@ -139,6 +140,21 @@ The tag has the meaning of:
>  
>  For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
>  
> +To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
> +format:
> +
> +.. code-block:: none
> +
> +     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
> +
> +For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, just
> +add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known
> +problems:
> +
> +.. code-block:: none
> +
> +     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
> +

This looks great to me, so I'll be glad to take it.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention other usages for stable tag comments

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 10.07.23 21:43, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:11PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Document how to delay backporting or send a note to the stable team
>> using shell-style inline comments attached to stable tags.
>>
>> CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>> CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>> CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
>> index 51df1197d5ab..6e4026dd6882 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
>> @@ -55,9 +55,10 @@ To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
>>  
>>       Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>  
>> -in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
>> -the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
>> -or subsystem maintainer.
>> +in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style
> 
> Is that how a ';' is really used?  I never can remember, so it's an
> honest question here :)

Ha, better ask a native speaker or your favorite internet search engine
for advice and not someone from Germany that in school was always bad at
both German and English. ;)

But to answer the question: I think it is used this way in English "to
connect related, but independent clauses". But the relation is not that
strong or important here; I also tend use semicolons a bit too much, so
I'll just drop it for v2.

> [...]
> This looks great to me, so I'll be glad to take it.

thx!

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention other usages for stable tag comments

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023, Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> wrote:
> Document how to delay backporting or send a note to the stable team
> using shell-style inline comments attached to stable tags.
>
> CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index 51df1197d5ab..6e4026dd6882 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -55,9 +55,10 @@ To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
>  
>       Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>  
> -in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
> -the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
> -or subsystem maintainer.
> +in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style
> +inline comment (see below for details). Once the patch is merged it will be
> +applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the
> +author or subsystem maintainer.
>  
>  .. _option_2:
>  
> @@ -139,6 +140,21 @@ The tag has the meaning of:
>  
>  For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
>  
> +To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
> +format:
> +
> +.. code-block:: none
> +
> +     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
> +
> +For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, just
> +add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known
> +problems:
> +
> +.. code-block:: none
> +
> +     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
> +

To me, this seems like promoting *any* free text after the #, making it
harder to parse in scripts.

Of course, I'm only ever producing this, and never consuming, so if the
manual reading is fine for the stable developers, who am I to argue.


BR,
Jani.


>  Following the submission:
>  
>   - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention other usages for stable tag comments

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 11.07.23 12:15, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023, Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> wrote:
> [...]
>> +To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
>> +format:
>> +
>> +.. code-block:: none
>> +
>> +     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
>> +
>> +For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, just
>> +add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known
>> +problems:
>> +
>> +.. code-block:: none
>> +
>> +     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
>> +
> 
> To me, this seems like promoting *any* free text after the #, making it
> harder to parse in scripts.
> 
> Of course, I'm only ever producing this, and never consuming, so if the
> manual reading is fine for the stable developers, who am I to argue.

I had similar concerns, to which Greg replied: ```my "script" is me
reviewing each patch :)```

FWIW, that was here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/2023061936-eatable-grumbling-f3c1@gregkh/

Ciao, Thorsten

[RFC PATCH v1 2/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: make rule section more straight forward

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Tweak some of the rule text to make things more straight forward, with
the goal to stick closely to the intend of the old text:

* put the "it or equivalent fix must be ustream" rule at the top, as
  it's one of the most important ones that at the same time often seems
  to be missed by developers.
* "It must fix only one thing" was dropped, as that is almost always a
  thing that needs to be handled earlier when the change is mainlined.
  Furthermore, this is already indirectly covered by the "Separate your
  changes" section in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst which
  the rules already point to.
* six other rules are in the end one rule with clarifications; structure
  the text accordingly to make it a lot easier to follow and understand
  the intend.

CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 39 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 6e4026dd6882..85d5d2368034 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -6,31 +6,30 @@ Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
 Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
 "-stable" tree:
 
+ - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
  - It must be obviously correct and tested.
  - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
- - It must fix only one thing.
- - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
-   problem..." type thing).
- - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
-   marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
-   security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short, something
-   critical.
- - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
-   be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
-   As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
-   regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
-   maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
-   exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
- - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
- - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
-   race can be exploited is also provided.
- - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
-   whitespace cleanups, etc).
  - It must follow the
    :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
    rules.
- - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
-
+ - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
+   To elaborate on the former:
+
+   - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
+     issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
+     CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
+     critical.
+   - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
+     be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
+     As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
+     regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
+     maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
+     exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
+   - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race
+     condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also
+     provided.
+   - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace
+     cleanups, etc).
 
 Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
 ----------------------------------------------------
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: make rule section more straight forward

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:12PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Tweak some of the rule text to make things more straight forward, with
> the goal to stick closely to the intend of the old text:
> 
> * put the "it or equivalent fix must be ustream" rule at the top, as
>   it's one of the most important ones that at the same time often seems
>   to be missed by developers.
> * "It must fix only one thing" was dropped, as that is almost always a
>   thing that needs to be handled earlier when the change is mainlined.
>   Furthermore, this is already indirectly covered by the "Separate your
>   changes" section in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst which
>   the rules already point to.
> * six other rules are in the end one rule with clarifications; structure
>   the text accordingly to make it a lot easier to follow and understand
>   the intend.
> 
> CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 39 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index 6e4026dd6882..85d5d2368034 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -6,31 +6,30 @@ Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
>  Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
>  "-stable" tree:
>  
> + - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
>   - It must be obviously correct and tested.
>   - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> - - It must fix only one thing.
> - - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
> -   problem..." type thing).
> - - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
> -   marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
> -   security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short, something
> -   critical.
> - - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
> -   be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
> -   As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
> -   regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
> -   maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
> -   exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
> - - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
> - - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
> -   race can be exploited is also provided.
> - - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
> -   whitespace cleanups, etc).
>   - It must follow the
>     :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
>     rules.
> - - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
> -
> + - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
> +   To elaborate on the former:
> +
> +   - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
> +     issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
> +     CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
> +     critical.
> +   - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
> +     be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
> +     As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
> +     regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
> +     maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
> +     exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
> +   - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race
> +     condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also
> +     provided.
> +   - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace
> +     cleanups, etc).
>  
>  Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
>  ----------------------------------------------------

Ah, it's nice to see that mainline also enforces the "must do one
thing", I think when I originally wrote this, it didn't :)

Again, all looks great to me, I'll be glad to take it.

thanks,

greg k-h

[RFC PATCH v1 3/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: improve structure to optimize reading flow

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Optimize the text flow to make things more straight forward to follow:

* remove a subheading without real purpose
* after outlining the three options add a section that explains them in
  more detail; move the "Following the submission" text that set in the
  middle of this to a later place in the document
* a few small clarifications along the way

CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 156 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 85d5d2368034..a9f36912b9dc 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -40,74 +40,45 @@ Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
    process but should follow the procedures in
    :ref:`Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
 
-For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------
+There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:
 
-.. _option_1:
+ 1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you want to mainline.
+ 2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.
+ 3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a mainlined patch.
 
-Option 1
-********
-
-To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
-
-.. code-block:: none
+The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.
 
-     Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
-
-in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style
-inline comment (see below for details). Once the patch is merged it will be
-applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the
-author or subsystem maintainer.
-
-.. _option_2:
-
-Option 2
-********
+:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common.
+:ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
+worthy at the time it is submitted for mainline inclusion (for instance, because
+it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:`option_3` is especially
+useful if the original upstream patch needs to be adjusted to be included in
+older series (for example the backport needs some special handling due to e.g.
+API changes).
 
-After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
-stable@vger.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
-why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
-be applied to.
+ .. _option_1:
 
-.. _option_3:
-
-Option 3
+Option 1
 ********
 
-Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
-stable@vger.kernel.org.  You must note the upstream commit ID in the
-changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
-it to be applied to.
-
-:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, is the easiest and most common.
-:ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
-worthy at the time it is applied to a public git tree (for instance, because
-it deserves more regression testing first).  :ref:`option_3` is especially
-useful if the original upstream patch needs to be backported (for example
-the backport needs some special handling due to e.g. API changes).
-
-Note that for :ref:`option_3`, if the patch deviates from the original
-upstream patch (for example because it had to be backported) this must be very
-clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
-
-The upstream commit ID must be specified with a separate line above the commit
-text, like this:
+To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion automatically picked up for
+the stable tree later, add the tag
 
 .. code-block:: none
 
-    commit <sha1> upstream.
-
-or alternatively:
+     Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
 
-.. code-block:: none
+in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the
+stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or
+subsystem maintainer.
 
-    [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
+You can add a note with additional instructions using a shell-style inline
+comment:
 
-Additionally, some patches submitted via :ref:`option_1` may have additional
-patch prerequisites which can be cherry-picked. This can be specified in the
-following format in the sign-off area:
+ * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the
+   following format in the sign-off area:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+   .. code-block:: none
 
      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
@@ -115,53 +86,88 @@ following format in the sign-off area:
      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
      Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
 
-The tag sequence has the meaning of:
+   The tag sequence has the meaning of:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+   .. code-block:: none
 
      git cherry-pick a1f84a3
      git cherry-pick 1b9508f
      git cherry-pick fd21073
      git cherry-pick <this commit>
 
-Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites.  This can be
-specified in the following format in the sign-off area:
+ * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
+   the following format in the sign-off area:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+   .. code-block:: none
 
      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
 
-The tag has the meaning of:
+   The tag has the meaning of:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+   .. code-block:: none
 
      git cherry-pick <this commit>
 
-For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
+   For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
 
-To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
-format:
+ * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+   .. code-block:: none
 
      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
 
-For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, just
-add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known
-problems:
+ * For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example
+   can be used to point out known problems:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+  .. code-block:: none
 
      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
 
-Following the submission:
+.. _option_2:
+
+Option 2
+********
+
+If the patch already has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
+stable@vger.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
+why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
+be applied to.
+
+.. _option_3:
+
+Option 3
+********
+
+Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
+stable@vger.kernel.org and mention the kernel version you wish it to be applied
+to.
+
+When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your
+submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+    commit <sha1> upstream.
+
+or alternatively:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+    [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
+
+If the patch submitted using this option deviates from the original upstream
+patch (for example because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must
+be very clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
+
+Following the submission
+------------------------
 
- - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the
-   queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected.  This response might take a few
-   days, according to the developer's schedules.
- - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by
-   other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
+The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the queue,
+or a NAK if the patch is rejected.  This response might take a few days,
+according to the developer's schedules.
 
+If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by other
+developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
 
 Review cycle
 ------------
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: improve structure to optimize reading flow

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:13PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Optimize the text flow to make things more straight forward to follow:
> 
> * remove a subheading without real purpose
> * after outlining the three options add a section that explains them in
>   more detail; move the "Following the submission" text that set in the
>   middle of this to a later place in the document
> * a few small clarifications along the way

All of this churn makes it really hard to determine what the end result
is.  Do you have a before/after result anywhere?

Or maybe split this out into 3 different patches?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 10.07.23 19:10, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the
> first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things
> that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts.
> So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see
> if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly
> their domain.
> 
> If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply
> drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate
> and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while
> adjusting things in good faith.
> 
> At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people
> like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

FWIW, in case anyone wonders what other changes I'd do, let me quote the
text as it looks after these changes and give a few examples inline:

> ```
> .. _stable_kernel_rules:
> 
> Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
> ===============================================================
> 
> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
> "-stable" tree:
> 
>  - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).

s/Linus' tree/mainline/g (just a detail, but I think that is the term
more commonly used and known)

>  - It must be obviously correct and tested.
>  - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
>  - It must follow the
>    :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
>    rules.
>  - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
>    To elaborate on the former:
> 
>    - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
>      issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
>      CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
>      critical.

s/ In short, something critical.//

Contradicts the "real bug that bothers people" somewhat and IMHO does
not add anything. But maybe that's just me.

>    - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
>      be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
>      As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
>      regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
>      maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
>      exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.

/me wonders if that is really providing additional insight and if this s
setting the bar a bit higher than it's really in practice

>    - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race
>      condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also
>      provided.
>    - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace
>      cleanups, etc).
> 
> Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> .. note::
> 
>    Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
>    process but should follow the procedures in
>    :ref:`Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
> 
> There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:
> 
>  1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you want to mainline.
>  2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.
>  3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a mainlined patch.
> 
> The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.
> 
> :ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common.
> :ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
> worthy at the time it is submitted for mainline inclusion (for instance, because
> it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:`option_3` is especially
> useful if the original upstream patch needs to be adjusted to be included in
> older series (for example the backport needs some special handling due to e.g.
> API changes).


Tweaked para:

:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most
common. :ref:`option_2` is meant for changes that were not deemed wort
including in stable at the time it was submitted for mainline inclusion
(for instance, because the full scale of the problem was not yet known).
:ref:`option_3` is an alternative to the two earlier options for cases
where a mainlined patch needs adjustments to apply in older series (for
example due to API changes).

>  .. _option_1:
> 
> Option 1
> ********
> 
> To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion automatically picked up for
> the stable tree later, add the tag
> 
> .. code-block:: none
> 
>      Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the
> stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or
> subsystem maintainer.
> 
> You can add a note with additional instructions using a shell-style inline
> comment:
> 
>  * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the
>    following format in the sign-off area:
> 
>    .. code-block:: none
> 
>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
>      Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> 
>    The tag sequence has the meaning of:
> 
>    .. code-block:: none
> 
>      git cherry-pick a1f84a3
>      git cherry-pick 1b9508f
>      git cherry-pick fd21073
>      git cherry-pick <this commit>
> 
>  * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
>    the following format in the sign-off area:
> 
>    .. code-block:: none
> 
>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
> 
>    The tag has the meaning of:
> 
>    .. code-block:: none
> 
>      git cherry-pick <this commit>
> 
>    For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.

/me wonders if something like a "note, such tagging is unnecessary if
the appropriate version can be derived from a Fixes: tag" would be
appropriate and worth it here

>  * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:
> 
>    .. code-block:: none
> 
>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
> 
>  * For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example
>    can be used to point out known problems:
> 
>   .. code-block:: none
> 
>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
> 
> .. _option_2:
> 
> Option 2
> ********
> 
> If the patch already has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
> stable@vger.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
> why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
> be applied to.
> 
> .. _option_3:
> 
> Option 3
> ********
> 
> Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
> stable@vger.kernel.org and mention the kernel version you wish it to be applied
> to.
> 
> When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your
> submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:
> 
> .. code-block:: none
> 
>     commit <sha1> upstream.
> 
> or alternatively:
> 
> .. code-block:: none
> 
>     [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
> 
> If the patch submitted using this option deviates from the original upstream
> patch (for example because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must
> be very clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
> 
> Following the submission
> ------------------------
> 
> The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the queue,
> or a NAK if the patch is rejected.  This response might take a few days,
> according to the developer's schedules.

s/developer's schedules/schedules of the stable team members/

> If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by other
> developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
> [...]
> ```

That's it. Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:18:43PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 10.07.23 19:10, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the
> > first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things
> > that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts.
> > So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see
> > if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly
> > their domain.
> > 
> > If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply
> > drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate
> > and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while
> > adjusting things in good faith.
> > 
> > At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people
> > like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.
> 
> FWIW, in case anyone wonders what other changes I'd do, let me quote the
> text as it looks after these changes and give a few examples inline:
> 
> > ```
> > .. _stable_kernel_rules:
> > 
> > Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
> > ===============================================================
> > 
> > Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
> > "-stable" tree:
> > 
> >  - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
> 
> s/Linus' tree/mainline/g (just a detail, but I think that is the term
> more commonly used and known)

Fair enough.

> >  - It must be obviously correct and tested.
> >  - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> >  - It must follow the
> >    :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
> >    rules.
> >  - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
> >    To elaborate on the former:
> > 
> >    - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
> >      issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
> >      CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
> >      critical.
> 
> s/ In short, something critical.//
> 
> Contradicts the "real bug that bothers people" somewhat and IMHO does
> not add anything. But maybe that's just me.

Agreed, it can be dropped.

> >    - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
> >      be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
> >      As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
> >      regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
> >      maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
> >      exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
> 
> /me wonders if that is really providing additional insight and if this s
> setting the bar a bit higher than it's really in practice

Let's leave this as-is for now.  I much prefer to take patches that have
lived in a distro because they obviously fix issues and have been tested
in the backported kernel tree already.

So let's keep this please.

> >    - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race
> >      condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also
> >      provided.
> >    - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace
> >      cleanups, etc).
> > 
> > Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > .. note::
> > 
> >    Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
> >    process but should follow the procedures in
> >    :ref:`Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
> > 
> > There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:
> > 
> >  1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you want to mainline.
> >  2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.
> >  3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a mainlined patch.
> > 
> > The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.
> > 
> > :ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common.
> > :ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
> > worthy at the time it is submitted for mainline inclusion (for instance, because
> > it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:`option_3` is especially
> > useful if the original upstream patch needs to be adjusted to be included in
> > older series (for example the backport needs some special handling due to e.g.
> > API changes).
> 
> 
> Tweaked para:
> 
> :ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most
> common.

You're just changing line lengths now :)

> :ref:`option_2` is meant for changes that were not deemed wort

"worthy"?

> including in stable at the time it was submitted for mainline inclusion
> (for instance, because the full scale of the problem was not yet known).

Usually this happens because people forgot, or didn't think about it,
"deemed worthy" is not normal from what I can tell.

> :ref:`option_3` is an alternative to the two earlier options for cases
> where a mainlined patch needs adjustments to apply in older series (for
> example due to API changes).

I like this change.

> 
> >  .. _option_1:
> > 
> > Option 1
> > ********
> > 
> > To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion automatically picked up for
> > the stable tree later, add the tag
> > 
> > .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > 
> > in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the
> > stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or
> > subsystem maintainer.
> > 
> > You can add a note with additional instructions using a shell-style inline
> > comment:
> > 
> >  * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the
> >    following format in the sign-off area:
> > 
> >    .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
> >      Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > 
> >    The tag sequence has the meaning of:
> > 
> >    .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      git cherry-pick a1f84a3
> >      git cherry-pick 1b9508f
> >      git cherry-pick fd21073
> >      git cherry-pick <this commit>
> > 
> >  * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
> >    the following format in the sign-off area:
> > 
> >    .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
> > 
> >    The tag has the meaning of:
> > 
> >    .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      git cherry-pick <this commit>
> > 
> >    For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
> 
> /me wonders if something like a "note, such tagging is unnecessary if
> the appropriate version can be derived from a Fixes: tag" would be
> appropriate and worth it here

Yes, possibly.

> >  * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:
> > 
> >    .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
> > 
> >  * For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example
> >    can be used to point out known problems:
> > 
> >   .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
> > 
> > .. _option_2:
> > 
> > Option 2
> > ********
> > 
> > If the patch already has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
> > stable@vger.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
> > why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
> > be applied to.
> > 
> > .. _option_3:
> > 
> > Option 3
> > ********
> > 
> > Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
> > stable@vger.kernel.org and mention the kernel version you wish it to be applied
> > to.
> > 
> > When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your
> > submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:
> > 
> > .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >     commit <sha1> upstream.
> > 
> > or alternatively:
> > 
> > .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >     [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
> > 
> > If the patch submitted using this option deviates from the original upstream
> > patch (for example because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must
> > be very clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
> > 
> > Following the submission
> > ------------------------
> > 
> > The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the queue,
> > or a NAK if the patch is rejected.  This response might take a few days,
> > according to the developer's schedules.
> 
> s/developer's schedules/schedules of the stable team members/

Yes, good catch!

Thanks for looking at this document, much appreciated.

greg k-h

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 10.07.23 21:50, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:18:43PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 10.07.23 19:10, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

>>>  - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
>>>    To elaborate on the former:
>>>
>>>    - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
>>>      issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
>>>      CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
>>>      critical.
>>
>> s/ In short, something critical.//
>>
>> Contradicts the "real bug that bothers people" somewhat and IMHO does
>> not add anything. But maybe that's just me.
> 
> Agreed, it can be dropped.

Thx for your feedback. I'll merge this bit into the second patch and
will send a v2 with just patch 1 or 2; and then will try to find a way
to handle all the other bits with a series that make it easier to see
what's changing.

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Johan Hovold]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:18:43PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 10.07.23 19:10, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> >  * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
> >    the following format in the sign-off area:
> > 
> >    .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
> > 
> >    The tag has the meaning of:
> > 
> >    .. code-block:: none
> > 
> >      git cherry-pick <this commit>
> > 
> >    For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
> 
> /me wonders if something like a "note, such tagging is unnecessary if
> the appropriate version can be derived from a Fixes: tag" would be
> appropriate and worth it here

Having these comments in the patch itself makes it easier to determine
whether a fix addresses a recent regression or an issue that's been
around since forever without having to copy-paste and look up each
commit in the Fixes tag(s).

Johan

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 11.07.23 10:42, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:18:43PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 10.07.23 19:10, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
>>>  * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
>>>    the following format in the sign-off area:
>>>
>>>    .. code-block:: none
>>>
>>>      Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
>>>
>>>    The tag has the meaning of:
>>>
>>>    .. code-block:: none
>>>
>>>      git cherry-pick <this commit>
>>>
>>>    For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
>>
>> /me wonders if something like a "note, such tagging is unnecessary if
>> the appropriate version can be derived from a Fixes: tag" would be
>> appropriate and worth it here
> 
> Having these comments in the patch itself makes it easier to determine
> whether a fix addresses a recent regression or an issue that's been
> around since forever without having to copy-paste and look up each
> commit in the Fixes tag(s).

Hmmm. But that can be misleading, as something like "Cc:
<stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x" might only have been used because the
submitter only tested if the change applies and works there while not
bothering with earlier kernels; similar things can happen if 3.2 and
earlier required changes to the patch due to API changes or file
movements the submitter was not willing to handle.

But I don't care. I already integrated a change like outlined earlier in
my local WIP document, but I can quickly remove it again.

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:10PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the
> first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things
> that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts.
> So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see
> if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly
> their domain.
> 
> If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply
> drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate
> and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while
> adjusting things in good faith.
> 
> At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people
> like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

I do like it, many thanks for taking the time to do this work, it's much
appreciated.

If you resend the first 2 as a non-RFC patch, I'll be glad to queue up,
the last one needs some more work as mentioned.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 10.07.23 21:51, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:10PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the
>> first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things
>> that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts.
>> So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see
>> if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly
>> their domain.
>>
>> If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply
>> drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate
>> and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while
>> adjusting things in good faith.
>>
>> At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people
>> like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.
> 
> I do like it, many thanks for taking the time to do this work, it's much
> appreciated.
>
> If you resend the first 2 as a non-RFC patch, 

BTW: thx again for your uplifting feedback! And in case anyone missed
it, I send those two patches out yesterday here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1689056247.git.linux@leemhuis.info/

> the last one needs some more work as mentioned.

I have that one in a separate branch now and spitted into four patches;
the first three basically move text around, which results in a much
cleaner diff for the last patch that contains actual content changes.
While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:

```
    .. warning::
       The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
tree and
       will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
only be
       used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
```

That sounded a bit odd to me, as it will scare people away that want to
test stable -rc's using git; and I think it doesn't match current
practices. I'll thus likely change the text to something like this,
unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
```
  .. warning::
     The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
     is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
     applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
```

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:30:30AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 10.07.23 21:51, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:10PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the
> >> first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things
> >> that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts.
> >> So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see
> >> if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly
> >> their domain.
> >>
> >> If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply
> >> drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate
> >> and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while
> >> adjusting things in good faith.
> >>
> >> At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people
> >> like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.
> > 
> > I do like it, many thanks for taking the time to do this work, it's much
> > appreciated.
> >
> > If you resend the first 2 as a non-RFC patch, 
> 
> BTW: thx again for your uplifting feedback! And in case anyone missed
> it, I send those two patches out yesterday here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1689056247.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
> 
> > the last one needs some more work as mentioned.
> 
> I have that one in a separate branch now and spitted into four patches;
> the first three basically move text around, which results in a much
> cleaner diff for the last patch that contains actual content changes.
> While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:
> 
> ```
>     .. warning::
>        The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
> tree and
>        will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
> only be
>        used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
> ```
> 
> That sounded a bit odd to me, as it will scare people away that want to
> test stable -rc's using git;

They are only there for people who _DO_ want to test stable -rc's using
git.

> and I think it doesn't match current practices.

No, it's pretty correct, what does not match?  It gets rebased all the
time.

> I'll thus likely
> change the text to something like this,
> unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
> ```
>   .. warning::
>      The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
>      is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
>      applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
test easier.

These are ONLY for CI systems to use, nothing else should be touching
them.  So I think the current text is correct, what am I missing?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:30:30AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:
>>
>> ```
>>     .. warning::
>>        The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
>> tree and
>>        will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
>> only be
>>        used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
>> ```
> [...]
>> I'll thus likely
>> change the text to something like this,
>> unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
>> ```
>>   .. warning::
>>      The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
>>      is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
>>      applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
> 
> Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
> places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
> test easier.
> 
> These are ONLY for CI systems to use, nothing else should be touching
> them.  So I think the current text is correct, what am I missing?

That I misunderstood things and forgot about the "rebased sometimes in
intermediate places" aspect I once knew about. Sorry. I'll leave the
text as it is then.

Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some
ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from
git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute
stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

And the "rebased sometimes in intermediate places" aspect complicated
things for me (my scripts handle that and apparently I forgot about that
since I wrote them; uhhps :-/ ).

But whatever, not that important, feel free to ignore this remark. And I
can see why you are doing it the way you do, too.

Thx for you helpful feedback!

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 07:02:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:30:30AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:
> >>
> >> ```
> >>     .. warning::
> >>        The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
> >> tree and
> >>        will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
> >> only be
> >>        used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
> >> ```
> > [...]
> >> I'll thus likely
> >> change the text to something like this,
> >> unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
> >> ```
> >>   .. warning::
> >>      The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
> >>      is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
> >>      applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
> > 
> > Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
> > places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
> > test easier.
> > 
> > These are ONLY for CI systems to use, nothing else should be touching
> > them.  So I think the current text is correct, what am I missing?
> 
> That I misunderstood things and forgot about the "rebased sometimes in
> intermediate places" aspect I once knew about. Sorry. I'll leave the
> text as it is then.
> 
> Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some
> ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from
> git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute
> stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do.  The
-rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones,
we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and
sometimes even change existing ones.

All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really
model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone
that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git
tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the
constant rebasing.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 12.07.23 21:00, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 07:02:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:
> [...]
>>>>   .. warning::
>>>>      The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
>>>>      is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
>>>>      applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
>>> places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
>>> test easier.
> [...]
>> Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some
>> ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from
>> git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute
>> stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/
> 
> As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do.  The
> -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones,
> we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and
> sometimes even change existing ones.
> 
> All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really
> model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone
> that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git
> tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the
> constant rebasing.

/me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but
then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this

FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those
rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released,
just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this
slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc
releases to users.

But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just
with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well.
Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is
that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts?

/me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable
but failed to find the -rc release script :-/

Whatever, as I said, not really important. :-D Have a nice day everyone!

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:48:14AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 12.07.23 21:00, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 07:02:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>>   .. warning::
> >>>>      The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
> >>>>      is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
> >>>>      applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
> >>> places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
> >>> test easier.
> > [...]
> >> Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some
> >> ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from
> >> git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute
> >> stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
> >> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/
> > 
> > As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do.  The
> > -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones,
> > we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and
> > sometimes even change existing ones.
> > 
> > All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really
> > model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone
> > that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git
> > tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the
> > constant rebasing.
> 
> /me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but
> then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this
> 
> FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those
> rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released,
> just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this
> slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc
> releases to users.
> 
> But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just
> with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well.
> Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is
> that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts?

I can add a tag, but it would have to be a tag that can be rebased, and
git doesn't like that very well :)

> /me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable
> but failed to find the -rc release script :-/

Hah, no github, it's at:
	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/quilt-mail

But I don't think tags will help much.  I'll let anyone who actually
runs a CI that uses this to speak up to see if it would before adding
them.

Also, as proof this works, I just got a report of someone testing the
queues and finding a problem at the moment, before we sent anything out
for review.  So this is working well today.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4268 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:06:22PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:48:14AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 12.07.23 21:00, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 07:02:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >> On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >>>>   .. warning::
> > >>>>      The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
> > >>>>      is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
> > >>>>      applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
> > >>> places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
> > >>> test easier.
> > > [...]
> > >> Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some
> > >> ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from
> > >> git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute
> > >> stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
> > >> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/
> > > 
> > > As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do.  The
> > > -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones,
> > > we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and
> > > sometimes even change existing ones.
> > > 
> > > All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really
> > > model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone
> > > that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git
> > > tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the
> > > constant rebasing.
> > 
> > /me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but
> > then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this
> > 
> > FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those
> > rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released,
> > just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this
> > slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc
> > releases to users.
> > 
> > But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just
> > with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well.
> > Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is
> > that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts?
> 
> I can add a tag, but it would have to be a tag that can be rebased, and
> git doesn't like that very well :)

I figure the desired tagging behaviour is that you do it when the email
is sent out for a corresponding version & so the tag "should" not need to
be rebased?

> > /me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable
> > but failed to find the -rc release script :-/
> 
> Hah, no github, it's at:
> 	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/quilt-mail
> 
> But I don't think tags will help much.  I'll let anyone who actually
> runs a CI that uses this to speak up to see if it would before adding
> them.

I'm not sure that it is particularly valuable to the usual flow of
testing what is about to come down the tracks, at least in my simple
case where I trigger it based on the -rc emails or whenever something
else interesting happens, like a patch being dropped that breaks the
build.

I suppose it may be useful if an issue presents itself but disappears
when a backport is dropped from the queue & some developers are
interested in figuring out why the backport went awry?

Other than that, I'm not sure what the value is in "I just with [sic]
there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well", in
_my_ CI use case I don't care about the superseded stable -rc versions,
just whatever is about to be released.

Others with more complex CI infrastructure, like Linaro etc, might feel
differently :)

> Also, as proof this works, I just got a report of someone testing the
> queues and finding a problem at the moment, before we sent anything out
> for review.  So this is working well today.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 13.07.23 17:39, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:06:22PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:48:14AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 12.07.23 21:00, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 07:02:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>> On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>   .. warning::
>>>>>>>      The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
>>>>>>>      is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
>>>>>>>      applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
>>>>>> places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
>>>>>> test easier.
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some
>>>>> ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from
>>>>> git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute
>>>>> stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
>>>>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/
>>>>
>>>> As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do.  The
>>>> -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones,
>>>> we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and
>>>> sometimes even change existing ones.
>>>>
>>>> All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really
>>>> model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone
>>>> that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git
>>>> tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the
>>>> constant rebasing.
>>>
>>> /me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but
>>> then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this
>>>
>>> FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those
>>> rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released,
>>> just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this
>>> slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc
>>> releases to users.
>>>
>>> But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just
>>> with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well.
>>> Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is
>>> that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts?
>>
>> I can add a tag, but it would have to be a tag that can be rebased, and
>> git doesn't like that very well :)
> 
> I figure the desired tagging behaviour is that you do it when the email
> is sent out for a corresponding version & so the tag "should" not need to
> be rebased?

Yup, exactly, that's what I meant, as that makes it possible to get the
same state as the tarball by simply doing a "git checkout v6.4.4-rc1",
even if the linux-6.4.y branch in the stable-rc repo changed.

And CI systems should not care.

>>> /me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable
>>> but failed to find the -rc release script :-/
>>
>> Hah, no github, it's at:
>> 	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/quilt-mail
>>
>> But I don't think tags will help much.  I'll let anyone who actually
>> runs a CI that uses this to speak up to see if it would before adding
>> them.
> 
> I'm not sure that it is particularly valuable to the usual flow of
> testing what is about to come down the tracks, at least in my simple
> case where I trigger it based on the -rc emails

My scripts instead wait for the tarballs to show up on kernel.org. :-D

> or whenever something
> else interesting happens, like a patch being dropped that breaks the
> build.
> 
> I suppose it may be useful if an issue presents itself but disappears
> when a backport is dropped from the queue & some developers are
> interested in figuring out why the backport went awry?
> 
> Other than that, I'm not sure what the value is in "I just with [sic]
> there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well", in
> _my_ CI use case I don't care about the superseded stable -rc versions,
> just whatever is about to be released.
> 
> Others with more complex CI infrastructure, like Linaro etc, might feel
> differently :)

Yeah, CI systems likely don't care much, but I distribute the proper
stable-rc releases to ordinary users for simple testing in the wild; and
it afaics would be good if they'd match the tarball in case a users runs
into problems and reports them, as I fear people otherwise might quickly
talk past each other...

Ciao, Thorsten