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 B2E1F1C9EA3 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:01:16 +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=1727794876; cv=none; b=szZW2TKmHuFVc0q+Xs0ZtrOuUUR1Y7luXFV/dO+yPVzWaQTiAx62A/e6Fq7J8WlovggCldQsFqJqWdVu0opUP6IEH5hWljQUXkoZKxLJ6gnxebDa62GCE6eG5ZYjGOrJ+5zT/3n1O5XiExG528s/c2po7EQ//9nw2C0PAMu/PTo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727794876; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s2GhYID8tH/G0dneJ2qTPktCYmCJB4TXNlmtGuzoljE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=c7rW/Xm2j8mfdgfKPEkc7KDvxKsT/8VrJRtBa/YRXimuT2qWNl+UFOR9WuWbqW/taoWQELqqPi14XkHnazF81IpzrdrZVmt0E9Ea9/vsnJsTnDATRgYzYEBYGar5Rn6356tFQOTKF9BQP/VaUqyl1n3JzbSJvA49JxUc5VSAemc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b=bc9Hf9ff; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="bc9Hf9ff" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE3FCC4CEC7; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:01:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="bc9Hf9ff" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; s=20210105; t=1727794873; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IKytWmSvxpgRZ8azTggW1hxVunYU1454v9Ag/j4MzLc=; b=bc9Hf9ffsYx9/fqSPi3JGjCnEPAgdGNvxXlnYk8Tqkb3ffDl/ALw6SuTwh4rXMIZ4yFR2P +HpwsILyjkHX/0FvLo6DAAVJNp3rtrpJbcRxX6eahVABb3wT2/Akpd900Uweg0dYl3wjYy dm0UoMuyANCETNYWvOYmjJtXZpE0lzM= Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id 570fddd8 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 17:01:12 +0200 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Sasha Levin , stable Subject: Re: patches sent up to 6.13-rc1 that shouldn't be backported Message-ID: 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2024100120-unlucky-sample-091b@gregkh> 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.