Patch "drm: Fix color LUT rounding" has been added to the 6.7-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 11:35:33AM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:53:03PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 11:17:28AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 08:35:24PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 10:16:48AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 08:05:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 12:03:20PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > > > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     drm: Fix color LUT rounding
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to the 6.7-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:
> > > > > > >      drm-fix-color-lut-rounding.patch
> > > > > > > and it can be found in the queue-6.7 subdirectory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> > > > > > > please let <stable at vger.kernel.org> know about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess I wasn't clear enough in the other mail...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NAK for all of backports of this patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, but why?  It seems that you are fixing a real issue here, right?  If
> > > > > not, the changelog is not clear with that at all...
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll go drop it now, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Because backporting it would require other backports that depend on
> > > > the rounding behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > Can I somehow fully opt out of these automagic backports?
> > > > If I want my stuff backported I'll ask for it.
> > > 
> > > You can, just let me know what exact files should be ignored, or you can
> > > send a patch against this file:
> > > 	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list
> > 
> > I think we should add at least i915 and xe there. cc: maintainers
> 
> It does feel a little wild to decide a patch needs to be backported
> based on the commit title starting with "Fix", or whatever way was used
> here. We always relied on patches being backported based on a) having a
> Fixes: trailer and  b) the commit pointed out in that trailer
> being present in that stable version. Or the others options shown
> in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> 
> Looking at the commit in question, c6fbb6bca10838485b820e8a26c23996f77ce580
> there's no such a trailer. Did I miss something from
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst?

No, this patch was picked up because of the text in the patch itself
that said "Fix color...".  We have a tool that does this to catch the
patches that people forget to tag for stable inclusion.

The patch really does seem like it needs to be backported, there's
nothing in it that says otherwise as it is nice and self-contained and
well documented.

thanks,

greg k-h