On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:12 PM Micah Morton <mort...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> That said I'm a little fuzzy on where to draw the line for which kinds
> of changes really should be required to have bake time in -next. If
> you think this is one of those cases, we can hold off on this until we
> have some bake time for v5.9.
It's merged, but in general the rule for "bake in -next" should be
absolutely everything.
The only exception is just pure and plain fixes.
This SafeSetID change should in fact have been there for two different
reasons: not only was it a new feature rather than a fix (in
linux-next just for testing), it was one that crossed subsystem
borders (should be in linux-next just for cross-subsystem testing). It
touched files that very much aren't touched by just you.
"Looks obvious" has nothing to do with avoiding linux-next.
I suspect most of the bugs we have tend to be in code that "looked
obvious" to somebody.
Linus
