On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:45:48AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> > You've missed the 5.10 mail :)
>>
>> You mean in the flood? ;-P
>>
>> > Pavel objected to it so I've dropped it: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zbli7QIGVFT8EtO4@sashalap/
>>
>> So we're not backporting those anymore? But everything else? :-P
>>
>> And 5.15 has it already...
>>
>> Frankly, with the amount of stuff going into stable, I see no problem with
>> backporting such patches. Especially if the people using stable kernels will
>> end up backporting it themselves and thus multiply work. I.e., Erwan's case.
>
>Well, some people would prefer -stable to only contain fixes for
>critical things, as documented.
>
>stable-kernel-rules.rst:
>
> - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
>   marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
>   security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short, something
>   critical.
>
>Now, you are right that reality and documentation are not exactly
>"aligned". I don't care much about which one is fixed, but I'd really
>like them to match (because that's what our users expect).

You should consider reading past the first bullet in that section :)

   - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
     be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.

It sounds like what's going on here, no?

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha