From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48600 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751308AbdJHPVA (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:21:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 16:20:52 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Laura Abbott Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to_pfn() Message-ID: <20171008152052.GA1694@remoulade> References: <20171006083840.743659740@linuxfoundation.org> <20171006083853.610785662@linuxfoundation.org> <20171006181322.GA19635@leverpostej> <20171007031004.jq322f76fv3do4of@sasha-lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171007031004.jq322f76fv3do4of@sasha-lappy> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 03:10:06AM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > >Hi Greg, > > > >On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:52:04AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > >I'm a little confused as to why this is being backported, given it > >wasn't Cc'd stable or marked as a fix. > > > >The lm_alias() helper was only introduced in v4.10, and I don't recall > >seeing that backported. > > > >What's going on here? > > Mark, > > We are experimenting with using neural network to aid with patch > selection for stable kernel trees. There are quite a few commits that > were not marked for stable, but are stable material, and we're trying > to get them into their appropriate kernel trees. I see. Perhaps it would make sense to mark these patches as having been selected automatically? That way, reviewers would be able to better judge whether a backport makes sense, as it wouldn't be implied that someone has encountered a problem on a stable kernel, requiring the backport. Maybe that was on the cover letter -- I only recieved this patch in isolation. Thanks, Mark.