From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E34BB2F2D for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 07:31:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727854283; cv=none; b=mv5fjwwiz+Jc+VP4/KpoUfmk23g6P05uCzKXLhVlU2Ezclj5K0pnw+3wG5+HIlm2UI3PBNf3r+VegOVRCuSNMv3pHxCI6rnVIRuXlHAlvWpbgp4Kjri1VPCvihCAm/PBwt9FtNqGPk7/ydCA8QrCjf2cvEZH2aE7z6S2cqqjOM8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727854283; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LLo/u73eSQ5NEPjxc1SsqK+/Dqq/Cx0WDlIpX2DkYWA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gJbZHzeAqQaW+kodfi1CxhKzrQo4FtcBVvNiQn2L63wKk4UlyUucRtFu1VpNnwS8D99QfRZYSoPXrA6HVNIVKnZivNtkHAdCBZ26E2vqKkAKlhf+FKfLKHrclOsEWij39P3rQP4PtJDc5rsS52NEszNaaIU9yUfjrYQzCuUEk3A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=LFZnvP1L; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="LFZnvP1L" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C43AC4CECE; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 07:31:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1727854282; bh=LLo/u73eSQ5NEPjxc1SsqK+/Dqq/Cx0WDlIpX2DkYWA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LFZnvP1LYRLbBXT7e94jcRUAvW4moZmpxwVW2zdTi0i0DoDnyqh+rMbRfVNLkvGgl 19+PBgA8HolNvjHQqj+YU38JCLHkAPl0khGSejQllxBDNUt6VfZ3zKPcrMf6zCXQSv 5lKi3totIdknIXRywrwp6qSmHKs1tmInR+aILEQ4= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 09:31:19 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: Sasha Levin , stable Subject: Re: patches sent up to 6.13-rc1 that shouldn't be backported Message-ID: <2024100205-abacus-favorably-339e@gregkh> References: <2024100107-womb-share-931a@gregkh> <2024100120-unlucky-sample-091b@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:01:12PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 02:13:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Ok, I'll try to rework the other dependant patches to see if we can get > > that fix in somehow without this change. But why not take this, what is > > it hurting? > > I just don't see the need to backport *any* patches from my tree that > don't have an explicit Cc: stable@ marker on them. I'm pretty careful > about adding those, and when I forget, I send them manually onward to > stable@. If there's some judgement that a certain patch needs to be > backported that I didn't mark, that sounds like something to > deliberately raise, rather than a heap of emails that this patch and > that patch have been added willy-nilly. > > The reason I care about this is that I generally care about stable and > consistency of rationale and such, and so if you *do* want to backport > some stuff, I am going to spend time checking and verifying and being > careful. I don't want to do that work if it's just the consequence of a > random script and not somebody's technical decision. > I've now dropped all of your patches from the stable queues. thanks, greg k-h