Re: Patch "btrfs: separate out the eb and extent state leak helpers" has been added to the 6.0-stable tree

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:57:04AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:27:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 10:39:18PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > > 
> > >     btrfs: separate out the eb and extent state leak helpers
> > > 
> > > to the 6.0-stable tree which can be found at:
> > >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> > > 
> > > The filename of the patch is:
> > >      btrfs-separate-out-the-eb-and-extent-state-leak-help.patch
> > > and it can be found in the queue-6.0 subdirectory.
> > > 
> > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> > > please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > commit 72845648c29a262b9cfbbe0e1ac678db0bc6166d
> > > Author: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> > > Date:   Fri Sep 9 17:53:19 2022 -0400
> > > 
> > >     btrfs: separate out the eb and extent state leak helpers
> > > 
> > >     [ Upstream commit a40246e8afc0af3ffdee21854fb755c9364b8346 ]
> > > 
> > >     Currently we have the add/del functions generic so that we can use them
> > >     for both extent buffers and extent states.  We want to separate this
> > >     code however, so separate these helpers into per-object helpers in
> > >     anticipation of the split.
> > > 
> > >     Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> > >     Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > >     Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > >     Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> > 
> > This is another case when a patch that's not fixing anything nor a
> > dependency is taken from a series that in the end is only cleanups.
> > Isn't there supposed to be some human oversight over the patches that
> > are then sent as autosel?
> > 
> > I think the number of false positives is too high and this means I have
> > to spend more time on the autosel patches, though majority of them have
> > some impact when backporting.
> 
> Would it make sense to remove fs/btrfs/ from autosel?

I think so, they are one of the few filesystems that do a great job of
marking things for stable when needed (other good examples are ext4, and
xfs is finally getting there.)

So I would remove them.

thanks,

greg k-h