From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754046AbdJIKGw (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2017 06:06:52 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:53986 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750828AbdJIKGv (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2017 06:06:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:06:53 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Mark Brown Cc: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" , Mark Rutland , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Catalin Marinas , Laura Abbott Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 086/104] arm64: kasan: avoid bad virt_to_pfn() Message-ID: <20171009100652.GE5127@arm.com> References: <20171006083840.743659740@linuxfoundation.org> <20171006083853.610785662@linuxfoundation.org> <20171006181322.GA19635@leverpostej> <20171007031004.jq322f76fv3do4of@sasha-lappy> <20171009091450.747d6qrcygzqu6lw@sirena.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171009091450.747d6qrcygzqu6lw@sirena.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:14:50AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 03:10:06AM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > > > We are experimenting with using neural network to aid with patch > > selection for stable kernel trees. There are quite a few commits that > > were not marked for stable, but are stable material, and we're trying > > to get them into their appropriate kernel trees. > > If you're sending patches that were identified by a bot rather than a > domain expert it'd be really good to flag these *very* clearly (eg, by > sending the submissions with a different sender address) as they'll need > much more careful review than things that came in via a domain expert. > When they come from someone who's a stable maintainer as part of a big > batch of patches that doesn't look like a new submission from a not that > trusted source. Taking this a bit further, I think ideally the subject would identify whether or not the patch was selected by a bot, and it shouldn't get backported to stable unless either the author or maintainer acks the patch, or there is a tested-by from somebody reporting that it fixes a bug on that stable tree that has actually been seen without it. On the flip side, it means that the default response (silence) stops the patches getting into stable, which isn't ideal for Greg. Thoughts? Will