On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:20 PM Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > 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.
Sounds good, that makes it pretty clear. Thanks > > 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
