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 C94031383 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 08:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CA5BC433EF; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 08:48:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1679302084; bh=ujA6Uw61/p6mzFCHl2TPNTrn3EeopZSQcSvdx284HS4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZoB1JsImlGki7ySeaRm7mmOXjE2Q7Pjj4iLMOA86bMnJH4CZaGmQd3JOhuSTrw9qL YzhHE79drltHGj1OyeQXqpWTmpi90mogbicQIxYTc3zA3dH4r9C3FKGkAyAWIvzDHD 7oBBGHNQbxU2m0wWqENh0YqTxcqMbj5nUSuneiSo= Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:47:57 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Linux regressions mailing list Cc: "stable@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , Bart Van Assche , scsi , "Martin K. Petersen" , "James E.J. Bottomley" Subject: Re: Consider picking up "scsi: core: Fix a procfs host directory removal regression" for stable Message-ID: References: <472c53aa-4803-cde9-8f80-cbd7d33dc9c5@leemhuis.info> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:45:04AM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 20.03.23 07:19, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > > Hi Greg. From https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217215 it > > looks like you want to add be03df3d4bfe ("scsi: core: Fix a procfs host > > directory removal regression") to your stable queue. It lacks a stable > > tag, but fixes a bug in a commit that afaics was backported to all > > stable series last week. > > > > Side note: would you scripts have noticed this automatically and added > > it to the queue today? (Just wondering if this mail actually makes any > > difference.) > > Sorry, ignore that, I noticed that fix is already in your queue (I > looked at it before writing that mail, but it seems I somehow missed it > and only noticed now; sorry for the noise). It's not noise, verifying that we actually picked up known fixes is good, I'd much rather a few "do you really have this fix" emails get sent than not sent at all and we miss things. And I just checked, yes, if Sasha hadn't picked this up with his scripts, my scripts would have caught it as well, so it was a good test that our independant processes are working. thanks, greg k-h