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 8CCA4306B08 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 07:56:59 +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=1776931019; cv=none; b=QrsrKtFLdlWio3hVwhpiznY2cXH0P+pES3wpUwzUoPqt8UrCBFty3RE56ekuJwZi91FFFHatlaE3oGrlBa9IEr7fnFZsIX5syXd3O/QJQ9813R5iV6PVvXM5OMBhSojX+MoCpCjmM7Zp5vA+atI01+YKQ2cGuEO/uatPQtdNnAY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776931019; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pDZE86GjStzoJINHCxxrcMWBHjoVB/TGMbM/dLPD2BU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uyGgINvxvsARjAxeg1puDMI5NJeG4NvJ0SONyDO+22vk7047yPZfOD3zoAcVxYDXrSLDLATVRCh5lYv9QWZmXezr3wdRD8og7nZp3FZ0YyuDWbRca3DF/U63/Zz80gCziDkuYAFddj1WG5OCwb2kLCmJDe+EGJhnWF/8GUT56I0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=Oyyvt5vB; 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="Oyyvt5vB" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8FADC2BCAF; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 07:56:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1776931019; bh=pDZE86GjStzoJINHCxxrcMWBHjoVB/TGMbM/dLPD2BU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Oyyvt5vBHIDbed1/OTJzd+NBxCKY0tM5cGJbo6CDKn+4EDYckh7y+EPzkudfTRsKh 0RbikoYLxhhDfMlO0Iv1VRYK5jA93Cw1u8x0omGSTG05NrXs5euOe5zdTGw4QnzRoM n1Z4SaXdkSXhRkAfSgjvWs/rsBOFFyzif116JKx4= Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:56:56 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Josh Law , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Backport request Message-ID: <2026042329-battered-anthem-f4ce@gregkh> References: <2026042325-backhand-vanish-f69d@gregkh> <2026042320-husband-brought-c7c7@gregkh> <1ee4f907-1eca-473d-93b2-c99d733a432b@kernel.org> 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: <1ee4f907-1eca-473d-93b2-c99d733a432b@kernel.org> On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 09:02:11AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/04/2026 08:46, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 08:39:29AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 23/04/2026 06:55, Greg KH wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 06:04:50PM +0100, Josh Law wrote: > >>>> Hello, I would like backports for > >>>> > >>>> Mainline hashes: > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/8cdf30813ea8ce881cecc08664144416dbdb3e16 > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/9003ec6f7f394943880618737d797a9f257e6e1e > >>> > >>> None of those have showed up in an actual release yet, so why should > >>> they be included "early"? > >> > >> None of the code was tested as Josh Law lied more than once about tests > >> [1] or laughed at us when we asked for testing: > >> > >> "laugh my ass out and your test cases, absolutely ill add some test > >> cases" [2] > >> > >> and then Josh Law was pushing his patches to get merged: > >> > >> "This most definitely needs to be merged." [3] > >> "Yeah in my opinion I think this may need to be merged.. if you would > >> like I can add the NOWARN" [4] > >> > >> And now we see a push for these commits to stable! > >> > >> Nothing from Josh Law should be going to stable trees, because nothing > >> was ever tested. > > > > Makes sense, is anyone going to send reverts for these? > > Untested does not mean yet incorrect, so not sure if we need to act on > already accepted commits getting to stable. Especially that for a revert > I would need to provide some stronger arguments, IMO. Easier to drop > from the queue in review. > > OTOH, if the actor is not trusted, a past correct patch is not a > positive indication for another patch. Untrusted, for whatever reason, > actor can write correct patches for some time... > > When untrusted person pushes why things are not in stable, it feels to > me like a warning sign. Fair enough, I'll just drop these from the stable queue and not worry about them UNLESS someone can prove that they actually fix a real bug. thanks, greg k-h