Re: [PATCH 5.14 298/334] time: Handle negative seconds correctly in timespec64_to_ns()

Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-17T19:29:37Z

Greg,

On Fri, Sep 17 2021 at 17:20, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Nah. I try to pay more attention. I'm not against AUTOSEL per se, but
>> could we change the rules slightly?
>>
>> Any change which is selected by AUTOSEL and lacks a Cc: stable@... is
>> put on hold until acked by the maintainer unless it is a prerequisite
>> for applying a stable tagged fix?
>>
>> This can be default off and made effective on maintainer request.
>>
>> Hmm?
>
> The whole point of the AUTOSEL patches are for the huge numbers of
> subsystems where maintainers and developers do not care about the stable
> trees at all, and so they do not mark patches to be backported. So
> requireing an opt-in like this would defeat the purpose.
>
> We do allow the ability to take files/subsystems out of the AUTOSEL
> process as there are many maintainers that do do this right and get
> annoyed when patches are picked that they feel shouldn't have. That's
> the best thing we can do for stuff like this.

I guess I was not able to express myself correctly. What I wanted to say
is:

1) Default is AUTOSEL

2) Maintainer can take files/subsystems out of AUTOSEL completely

Exists today

3) Maintainer allows AUTOSEL, but anything picked from files/subsystems
without a stable tag requires an explicit ACK from the maintainer
for the backport.

Is new and I would be the first to opt-in :)

My rationale for #3 is that even when being careful about stable tags,
it happens that one is missing. Occasionaly AUTOSEL finds one of those
in my subsystems which I appreciate.

Does that make more sense now?

Thanks,

tglx