Re: [PATCH] x86_64 ia32 syscall restart fix

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> I believe the -stable guys have a bot which trolls the mainline 
> commits mailing list for "cc:.*stable@kernel.org".  So anybody 
> anywhere in the patch delivery chain can append "Cc: 
> <stable@kernel.org>" and things should get appropriate consideration.

ok, didnt know about that.

> The place where I suspect there is a lot of lossage is people simply 
> not thinking about whether a fix should be backported.  I'm forever 
> fussing about that for the patches I handle (and I still miss some) 
> but I have a suspicion that not all tree-owners do this fully.

we watch out for this, but still, about 50% of the cases, the 
realization "this should be backported" comes later on. Often because 
fixes get applied with low latency, and testers lag in realizing that 
some particular -stable problem is fixed by a -git fix. Sometimes people 
do bisection in search of backportable fixes - that too has a lag.

so the more formal:

    Backport-suggested-by: commit-id, person

entry would solve both cases. Also, a commit entry in -stable:

    Backported-from: commit-id

would finish the transaction. [ But this is clearly something that the 
-stable folks have to request - it wont help much if we start doing it 
but the -stable folks ignore the entries :-) ]

	Ingo