From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27B9C2BA19 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C322075E for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="SZp9pqL4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391033AbgDNOix (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:38:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39800 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391025AbgDNOip (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:38:45 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb41.google.com (mail-yb1-xb41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1E18C061A0C; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb41.google.com with SMTP id f14so7278731ybr.13; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DBov4c0FPAs/GB0H+VoCLMbjb3xE9YZh3UekJ0w2xxQ=; b=SZp9pqL4/SIbGKiZ7G9fbmeTOsbsGmxutmHCVoNe/hXlc9azzXMGyscO0MRHYogJEs tqOv7GyZ0j1FaqLUHrsHIuG9hU5VqzkUVH1cAIHZzh0bZl5Ru/FBUOk/KEsD2cYyn8wn jyNlSBPjeVDiL4ojSURzeLww7OA8yliMEctkSAJLrm+iCe0W30L9yRp77gUuQtBz2qcI Yj98HrlQwvNl5jkZ+mYkrRTg3mN2txEyM/0UQHcvvspUWa62e/baS8R82rxMaHAIzCBn 68Zggnwxe90ejy//YBICiWJHGeb4q1IajiJSMCNb7N9Y3XWb3H5W0JUoe7LzE/h94f4r 4aXA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DBov4c0FPAs/GB0H+VoCLMbjb3xE9YZh3UekJ0w2xxQ=; b=BapCplQFmQh6VVtc/lcnh4wuh3kKE+ahzqtT5E2nbcfjUd5kwahgx7SDse0XEa3kV8 onBISHAYtWPH0m+ut9ZUDoWW64a7TegMpRxDxx10TRfQyIxNPK0ZUk0tChLgOTgyahNX Q6FrCK+hdbOoE+ioQTUrssKuXUFp9l3492WOTylsHNGVk0KxH7ymi+iziTISOb/4Ql4u 7EBqkU2ixmORBIfWSzmoKD7fOwBFdnWurA8BXEuro3xvKz6/XWbPNzJasaeB+BTEAeT5 E/U5EYOjbVT8f43CGQ8M2pJR+G+MtQ4tymAzItW0ao3MJPk5FQVfN9KNeMNXGSZ/DjWR LYgw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ1b9i9aI7gpSyd5DXKpsX/KZ9Q6WFJcblcCBWfkhietBSPPCBl Nyx9qhphB1RdhfOtKdQz7x5oHdUELCdZR9OCPP5XUWIfcqg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIi8Iiyo9TUqXdYboNOEyl3RMyffO46vk+0FWqxXmUbGe7kuvCG0mTEml7Cy73IVaLlNmqICEmmkmsLtv9zzu8= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:5cf:: with SMTP id w15mr432551ybp.215.1586875124002; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200411231413.26911-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20200411231413.26911-9-sashal@kernel.org> <20200412105935.49dacbf7@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20200414015627.GA1068@sasha-vm> <20200414110911.GA341846@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20200414110911.GA341846@kroah.com> From: Or Gerlitz Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:38:32 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 09/26] net/mlx5e: Init ethtool steering for representors To: Greg KH Cc: Sasha Levin , Jakub Kicinski , Stable , Linux Netdev List , Saeed Mahameed , David Miller Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:09 PM Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:22:59PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > IMHO - I think it should be the other way around, you should get approval > > from sub-system maintainers to put their code in charge into auto-selection, > > unless there's kernel summit decision that says otherwise, is this documented > > anywhere? > > No, we can't get make this a "only take if I agree" as there are _many_ > subsystem maintainers who today never mark anything for stable trees, as > they just can't be bothered. And that's fine, stable trees should not > take up any extra maintainer time if they do not want to do so. So it's > simpler to do an opt-out when asked for. OK, but I must say I am worried from the comment made here: "I'm not sure what a fixes tag has to do with inclusion in a stable tree" This patch (A) was pushed to -next and not -rc kernel (B) doesn't have fixes tag (C) the change log state clearly that what's being "fixed" can't be reproduced on any earlier kernel [..] "only possible to reproduce with next commit in this series" but it was selected for -stable -- at least if the fixes tag was used as gating criteria, this wrong stable inclusion could have been eliminated