stable-kernel-rules was Re: fs/bcachefs/

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]

Hi!

> > Personally I think we are not taking enough, and are still missing real
> > fixes.  Overall, this is only a very small % of what goes into Linus's
> > tree every day, so by that measure alone, we know we are missing things.
> 
> What % of what goes into Linus's tree do you think fits within the rules
> stated in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst ? I don't know but
> "very small" would be my guess, so we should be fine as it is?
> 
> Or are the rules actually still being observed? I doubt e.g. many of the
> AUTOSEL backports fit them? Should we rename the file to
> stable-rules-nonsense.rst?

There seems to be just one rule being observed: "It or an equivalent
fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).". Every other rule is
broken pretty much all the time.

AUTOSEL is a problem.

Plus there's problem with dependencies -- if a patch A is need for fix
B, the rules pretty much go out of the window, huge patches are
applied, whitespace fixes are applied, etc.

There are even known-bad patches being applied, and then
reverted. Greg explained that it heps his process somehow.

For example in 6.1.53 review, my notes say 30% of the patches did not
match the documented rules. 42% for v6.1.76.

OTOH ammount of patches that cause "real" problems is not that great,
and we seem to have enough testing. Still, updating the documentation
to match the reality would be good (perhaps explaining that stable
does not have manpower to re-do the dependencies, and how "apply bad
and revert" works).

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]