From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:41216 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754608AbdARLId (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:08:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:49:25 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Michal Hocko Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, hejianet@gmail.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, mgorman@suse.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, stable@vger.kernel.org, stable-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Patch "mm: fix remote numa hits statistics" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree Message-ID: <20170118104925.GA6243@kroah.com> References: <14846695834238@kroah.com> <20170117162143.GU19699@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170117162825.GA9327@kroah.com> <20170118100122.GN7015@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170118102338.GA15169@kroah.com> <20170118103338.GP7015@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170118103338.GP7015@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:33:39AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 18-01-17 11:23:38, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:01:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 17-01-17 17:28:25, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 05:21:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Tue 17-01-17 17:13:03, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > > > > > > > > > > > mm: fix remote numa hits statistics > > > > > > > > > > > > to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at: > > > > > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > > > > > > > > > > > The filename of the patch is: > > > > > > mm-fix-remote-numa-hits-statistics.patch > > > > > > and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > > > > > > please let know about it. > > > > > > > > > > It is not marked for stable so why it has been chosen? > > > > > > > > I found it by digging through the git commit logs. > > > > > > Was the Fixes tag the reason to pick it up? > > > > It made me pay a bit more attention to it, yes. I search for that and > > other keywords, in the git log to see if there are patches that need to > > be backported where people forget to add the stable tags. I have to do > > this because some subsystems still never set them :( > > I am pretty sure that Andrew is really trying hard to mark all the core > MM changes for stable. Picking up changes just because they have Fixes: > tag in them is imho a bad idea. If somebody made the effort to add this > tag I am pretty sure Cc: stable was considered as well. If that is not > the case let's just push back and ask directly when a patch is submitted > rather than picking up the patch and hope that somebody will object... > > Don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate your effort here I am just > worried that conflating Fixes: and Cc: stable is a wrong thing. I > absolutely see a reason CC: stable should imply Fixes: but not other way > around. Yes, for lots of subsystems fixes: does not mean stable, but for a non-small number of other ones, it is needed still :( Andrew does a great job marking stable fixes, I'll try to remember that mm: stuff should not be backported if it only has a fixes: tag in the future. thanks, greg k-h