On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 07:48:49AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 1/3/20 7:29 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:25 PM Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:03 PM Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 03:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
-ENOENT is what you get when hugetlbfs is not mounted, so this hints to
8fc312b32b2 mm/hugetlbfs: fix error handling when setting up mounts
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/c...
I see that Mike Kravetz suggested not putting this patch into stable in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/befca227-cb8a-8f47-617d-e3bf9972bfec@oracle.com...
but it was picked through the autosel mechanism later.
I think autosel is way too aggressive. This is an excellent example.
Why? It fixes a bug, the text says so, and the code shows it. This is a great example of a patch that autosel _should_ be picking up. Now the fact that it happens to break existing functionality is not an autosel-detectable thing. Especially as that same functionality is now broken in Linus's tree :)
Autosel assumes that patches are correct, it can't know that they are buggy. That should have been weeded out by the developers and testing before they hit Linus's tree.
thanks,
greg k-h