Merging upstream version 6.7.7.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

8 files changed, 702 insertions, 18 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
index bf7cbfb4ca..4329170433 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ pull.  The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will
 format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be
 sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server.
 
+.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews:
 
 Reviewing patches
 -----------------
@@ -167,6 +168,12 @@ comments as questions rather than criticisms.  Asking "how does the lock
 get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the
 locking here is wrong."
 
+Another technique that is useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others
+to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges,
+then call for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in
+agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon.
+The opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight.
+
 Different developers will review code from different points of view.  Some
 are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing
 white space.  Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented
@@ -176,3 +183,14 @@ security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate
 documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc.
 All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are
 welcome and worthwhile.
+
+There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``.
+In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged
+even when a tag is provided, e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this
+submission and it looks good to me."
+Some form of a review message or reply is obviously necessary otherwise
+maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all!
+
+Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused
+on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while,
+particularly for newbies!
diff --git a/Documentation/process/backporting.rst b/Documentation/process/backporting.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..e1a6ea0a1e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/backporting.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,604 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+===================================
+Backporting and conflict resolution
+===================================
+
+:Author: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
+
+.. contents::
+    :local:
+    :depth: 3
+    :backlinks: none
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+Some developers may never really have to deal with backporting patches,
+merging branches, or resolving conflicts in their day-to-day work, so
+when a merge conflict does pop up, it can be daunting. Luckily,
+resolving conflicts is a skill like any other, and there are many useful
+techniques you can use to make the process smoother and increase your
+confidence in the result.
+
+This document aims to be a comprehensive, step-by-step guide to
+backporting and conflict resolution.
+
+Applying the patch to a tree
+============================
+
+Sometimes the patch you are backporting already exists as a git commit,
+in which case you just cherry-pick it directly using
+``git cherry-pick``. However, if the patch comes from an email, as it
+often does for the Linux kernel, you will need to apply it to a tree
+using ``git am``.
+
+If you've ever used ``git am``, you probably already know that it is
+quite picky about the patch applying perfectly to your source tree. In
+fact, you've probably had nightmares about ``.rej`` files and trying to
+edit the patch to make it apply.
+
+It is strongly recommended to instead find an appropriate base version
+where the patch applies cleanly and *then* cherry-pick it over to your
+destination tree, as this will make git output conflict markers and let
+you resolve conflicts with the help of git and any other conflict
+resolution tools you might prefer to use. For example, if you want to
+apply a patch that just arrived on LKML to an older stable kernel, you
+can apply it to the most recent mainline kernel and then cherry-pick it
+to your older stable branch.
+
+It's generally better to use the exact same base as the one the patch
+was generated from, but it doesn't really matter that much as long as it
+applies cleanly and isn't too far from the original base. The only
+problem with applying the patch to the "wrong" base is that it may pull
+in more unrelated changes in the context of the diff when cherry-picking
+it to the older branch.
+
+A good reason to prefer ``git cherry-pick`` over ``git am`` is that git
+knows the precise history of an existing commit, so it will know when
+code has moved around and changed the line numbers; this in turn makes
+it less likely to apply the patch to the wrong place (which can result
+in silent mistakes or messy conflicts).
+
+If you are using `b4`_. and you are applying the patch directly from an
+email, you can use ``b4 am`` with the options ``-g``/``--guess-base``
+and ``-3``/``--prep-3way`` to do some of this automatically (see the
+`b4 presentation`_ for more information). However, the rest of this
+article will assume that you are doing a plain ``git cherry-pick``.
+
+.. _b4: https://people.kernel.org/monsieuricon/introducing-b4-and-patch-attestation
+.. _b4 presentation: https://youtu.be/mF10hgVIx9o?t=2996
+
+Once you have the patch in git, you can go ahead and cherry-pick it into
+your source tree. Don't forget to cherry-pick with ``-x`` if you want a
+written record of where the patch came from!
+
+Note that if you are submiting a patch for stable, the format is
+slightly different; the first line after the subject line needs tobe
+either::
+
+    commit <upstream commit> upstream
+
+or::
+
+    [ Upstream commit <upstream commit> ]
+
+Resolving conflicts
+===================
+
+Uh-oh; the cherry-pick failed with a vaguely threatening message::
+
+    CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict
+
+What to do now?
+
+In general, conflicts appear when the context of the patch (i.e., the
+lines being changed and/or the lines surrounding the changes) doesn't
+match what's in the tree you are trying to apply the patch *to*.
+
+For backports, what likely happened was that the branch you are
+backporting from contains patches not in the branch you are backporting
+to. However, the reverse is also possible. In any case, the result is a
+conflict that needs to be resolved.
+
+If your attempted cherry-pick fails with a conflict, git automatically
+edits the files to include so-called conflict markers showing you where
+the conflict is and how the two branches have diverged. Resolving the
+conflict typically means editing the end result in such a way that it
+takes into account these other commits.
+
+Resolving the conflict can be done either by hand in a regular text
+editor or using a dedicated conflict resolution tool.
+
+Many people prefer to use their regular text editor and edit the
+conflict directly, as it may be easier to understand what you're doing
+and to control the final result. There are definitely pros and cons to
+each method, and sometimes there's value in using both.
+
+We will not cover using dedicated merge tools here beyond providing some
+pointers to various tools that you could use:
+
+-  `Emacs Ediff mode <https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EdiffMode>`__
+-  `vimdiff/gvimdiff <https://linux.die.net/man/1/vimdiff>`__
+-  `KDiff3 <http://kdiff3.sourceforge.net/>`__
+-  `TortoiseMerge <https://tortoisesvn.net/TortoiseMerge.html>`__
+-  `Meld <https://meldmerge.org/help/>`__
+-  `P4Merge <https://www.perforce.com/products/helix-core-apps/merge-diff-tool-p4merge>`__
+-  `Beyond Compare <https://www.scootersoftware.com/>`__
+-  `IntelliJ <https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/resolve-conflicts.html>`__
+-  `VSCode <https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/versioncontrol>`__
+
+To configure git to work with these, see ``git mergetool --help`` or
+the official `git-mergetool documentation`_.
+
+.. _git-mergetool documentation: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-mergetool
+
+Prerequisite patches
+--------------------
+
+Most conflicts happen because the branch you are backporting to is
+missing some patches compared to the branch you are backporting *from*.
+In the more general case (such as merging two independent branches),
+development could have happened on either branch, or the branches have
+simply diverged -- perhaps your older branch had some other backports
+applied to it that themselves needed conflict resolutions, causing a
+divergence.
+
+It's important to always identify the commit or commits that caused the
+conflict, as otherwise you cannot be confident in the correctness of
+your resolution. As an added bonus, especially if the patch is in an
+area you're not that famliar with, the changelogs of these commits will
+often give you the context to understand the code and potential problems
+or pitfalls with your conflict resolution.
+
+git log
+~~~~~~~
+
+A good first step is to look at ``git log`` for the file that has the
+conflict -- this is usually sufficient when there aren't a lot of
+patches to the file, but may get confusing if the file is big and
+frequently patched. You should run ``git log`` on the range of commits
+between your currently checked-out branch (``HEAD``) and the parent of
+the patch you are picking (``<commit>``), i.e.::
+
+    git log HEAD..<commit>^ -- <path>
+
+Even better, if you want to restrict this output to a single function
+(because that's where the conflict appears), you can use the following
+syntax::
+
+    git log -L:'\<function\>':<path> HEAD..<commit>^
+
+.. note::
+     The ``\<`` and ``\>`` around the function name ensure that the
+     matches are anchored on a word boundary. This is important, as this
+     part is actually a regex and git only follows the first match, so
+     if you use ``-L:thread_stack:kernel/fork.c`` it may only give you
+     results for the function ``try_release_thread_stack_to_cache`` even
+     though there are many other functions in that file containing the
+     string ``thread_stack`` in their names.
+
+Another useful option for ``git log`` is ``-G``, which allows you to
+filter on certain strings appearing in the diffs of the commits you are
+listing::
+
+    git log -G'regex' HEAD..<commit>^ -- <path>
+
+This can also be a handy way to quickly find when something (e.g. a
+function call or a variable) was changed, added, or removed. The search
+string is a regular expression, which means you can potentially search
+for more specific things like assignments to a specific struct member::
+
+    git log -G'\->index\>.*='
+
+git blame
+~~~~~~~~~
+
+Another way to find prerequisite commits (albeit only the most recent
+one for a given conflict) is to run ``git blame``. In this case, you
+need to run it against the parent commit of the patch you are
+cherry-picking and the file where the conflict appared, i.e.::
+
+    git blame <commit>^ -- <path>
+
+This command also accepts the ``-L`` argument (for restricting the
+output to a single function), but in this case you specify the filename
+at the end of the command as usual::
+
+    git blame -L:'\<function\>' <commit>^ -- <path>
+
+Navigate to the place where the conflict occurred. The first column of
+the blame output is the commit ID of the patch that added a given line
+of code.
+
+It might be a good idea to ``git show`` these commits and see if they
+look like they might be the source of the conflict. Sometimes there will
+be more than one of these commits, either because multiple commits
+changed different lines of the same conflict area *or* because multiple
+subsequent patches changed the same line (or lines) multiple times. In
+the latter case, you may have to run ``git blame`` again and specify the
+older version of the file to look at in order to dig further back in
+the history of the file.
+
+Prerequisite vs. incidental patches
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Having found the patch that caused the conflict, you need to determine
+whether it is a prerequisite for the patch you are backporting or
+whether it is just incidental and can be skipped. An incidental patch
+would be one that touches the same code as the patch you are
+backporting, but does not change the semantics of the code in any
+material way. For example, a whitespace cleanup patch is completely
+incidental -- likewise, a patch that simply renames a function or a
+variable would be incidental as well. On the other hand, if the function
+being changed does not even exist in your current branch then this would
+not be incidental at all and you need to carefully consider whether the
+patch adding the function should be cherry-picked first.
+
+If you find that there is a necessary prerequisite patch, then you need
+to stop and cherry-pick that instead. If you've already resolved some
+conflicts in a different file and don't want to do it again, you can
+create a temporary copy of that file.
+
+To abort the current cherry-pick, go ahead and run
+``git cherry-pick --abort``, then restart the cherry-picking process
+with the commit ID of the prerequisite patch instead.
+
+Understanding conflict markers
+------------------------------
+
+Combined diffs
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Let's say you've decided against picking (or reverting) additional
+patches and you just want to resolve the conflict. Git will have
+inserted conflict markers into your file. Out of the box, this will look
+something like::
+
+    <<<<<<< HEAD
+    this is what's in your current tree before cherry-picking
+    =======
+    this is what the patch wants it to be after cherry-picking
+    >>>>>>> <commit>... title
+
+This is what you would see if you opened the file in your editor.
+However, if you were to run ``git diff`` without any arguments, the
+output would look something like this::
+
+    $ git diff
+    [...]
+    ++<<<<<<<< HEAD
+     +this is what's in your current tree before cherry-picking
+    ++========
+    + this is what the patch wants it to be after cherry-picking
+    ++>>>>>>>> <commit>... title
+
+When you are resolving a conflict, the behavior of ``git diff`` differs
+from its normal behavior. Notice the two columns of diff markers
+instead of the usual one; this is a so-called "`combined diff`_", here
+showing the 3-way diff (or diff-of-diffs) between
+
+#. the current branch (before cherry-picking) and the current working
+   directory, and
+#. the current branch (before cherry-picking) and the file as it looks
+   after the original patch has been applied.
+
+.. _combined diff: https://git-scm.com/docs/diff-format#_combined_diff_format
+
+
+Better diffs
+~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+3-way combined diffs include all the other changes that happened to the
+file between your current branch and the branch you are cherry-picking
+from. While this is useful for spotting other changes that you need to
+take into account, this also makes the output of ``git diff`` somewhat
+intimidating and difficult to read. You may instead prefer to run
+``git diff HEAD`` (or ``git diff --ours``) which shows only the diff
+between the current branch before cherry-picking and the current working
+directory. It looks like this::
+
+    $ git diff HEAD
+    [...]
+    +<<<<<<<< HEAD
+     this is what's in your current tree before cherry-picking
+    +========
+    +this is what the patch wants it to be after cherry-picking
+    +>>>>>>>> <commit>... title
+
+As you can see, this reads just like any other diff and makes it clear
+which lines are in the current branch and which lines are being added
+because they are part of the merge conflict or the patch being
+cherry-picked.
+
+Merge styles and diff3
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The default conflict marker style shown above is known as the ``merge``
+style. There is also another style available, known as the ``diff3``
+style, which looks like this::
+
+    <<<<<<< HEAD
+    this is what is in your current tree before cherry-picking
+    ||||||| parent of <commit> (title)
+    this is what the patch expected to find there
+    =======
+    this is what the patch wants it to be after being applied
+    >>>>>>> <commit> (title)
+
+As you can see, this has 3 parts instead of 2, and includes what git
+expected to find there but didn't. It is *highly recommended* to use
+this conflict style as it makes it much clearer what the patch actually
+changed; i.e., it allows you to compare the before-and-after versions
+of the file for the commit you are cherry-picking. This allows you to
+make better decisions about how to resolve the conflict.
+
+To change conflict marker styles, you can use the following command::
+
+    git config merge.conflictStyle diff3
+
+There is a third option, ``zdiff3``, introduced in `Git 2.35`_,
+which has the same 3 sections as ``diff3``, but where common lines have
+been trimmed off, making the conflict area smaller in some cases.
+
+.. _Git 2.35: https://github.blog/2022-01-24-highlights-from-git-2-35/
+
+Iterating on conflict resolutions
+---------------------------------
+
+The first step in any conflict resolution process is to understand the
+patch you are backporting. For the Linux kernel this is especially
+important, since an incorrect change can lead to the whole system
+crashing -- or worse, an undetected security vulnerability.
+
+Understanding the patch can be easy or difficult depending on the patch
+itself, the changelog, and your familiarity with the code being changed.
+However, a good question for every change (or every hunk of the patch)
+might be: "Why is this hunk in the patch?" The answers to these
+questions will inform your conflict resolution.
+
+Resolution process
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Sometimes the easiest thing to do is to just remove all but the first
+part of the conflict, leaving the file essentially unchanged, and apply
+the changes by hand. Perhaps the patch is changing a function call
+argument from ``0`` to ``1`` while a conflicting change added an
+entirely new (and insignificant) parameter to the end of the parameter
+list; in that case, it's easy enough to change the argument from ``0``
+to ``1`` by hand and leave the rest of the arguments alone. This
+technique of manually applying changes is mostly useful if the conflict
+pulled in a lot of unrelated context that you don't really need to care
+about.
+
+For particularly nasty conflicts with many conflict markers, you can use
+``git add`` or ``git add -i`` to selectively stage your resolutions to
+get them out of the way; this also lets you use ``git diff HEAD`` to
+always see what remains to be resolved or ``git diff --cached`` to see
+what your patch looks like so far.
+
+Dealing with file renames
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+One of the most annoying things that can happen while backporting a
+patch is discovering that one of the files being patched has been
+renamed, as that typically means git won't even put in conflict markers,
+but will just throw up its hands and say (paraphrased): "Unmerged path!
+You do the work..."
+
+There are generally a few ways to deal with this. If the patch to the
+renamed file is small, like a one-line change, the easiest thing is to
+just go ahead and apply the change by hand and be done with it. On the
+other hand, if the change is big or complicated, you definitely don't
+want to do it by hand.
+
+As a first pass, you can try something like this, which will lower the
+rename detection threshold to 30% (by default, git uses 50%, meaning
+that two files need to have at least 50% in common for it to consider
+an add-delete pair to be a potential rename)::
+
+  git cherry-pick -strategy=recursive -Xrename-threshold=30
+
+Sometimes the right thing to do will be to also backport the patch that
+did the rename, but that's definitely not the most common case. Instead,
+what you can do is to temporarily rename the file in the branch you're
+backporting to (using ``git mv`` and committing the result), restart the
+attempt to cherry-pick the patch, rename the file back (``git mv`` and
+committing again), and finally squash the result using ``git rebase -i``
+(see the `rebase tutorial`_) so it appears as a single commit when you
+are done.
+
+.. _rebase tutorial: https://medium.com/@slamflipstrom/a-beginners-guide-to-squashing-commits-with-git-rebase-8185cf6e62ec
+
+Gotchas
+-------
+
+Function arguments
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Pay attention to changing function arguments! It's easy to gloss over
+details and think that two lines are the same but actually they differ
+in some small detail like which variable was passed as an argument
+(especially if the two variables are both a single character that look
+the same, like i and j).
+
+Error handling
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If you cherry-pick a patch that includes a ``goto`` statement (typically
+for error handling), it is absolutely imperative to double check that
+the target label is still correct in the branch you are backporting to.
+The same goes for added ``return``, ``break``, and ``continue``
+statements.
+
+Error handling is typically located at the bottom of the function, so it
+may not be part of the conflict even though could have been changed by
+other patches.
+
+A good way to ensure that you review the error paths is to always use
+``git diff -W`` and ``git show -W`` (AKA ``--function-context``) when
+inspecting your changes.  For C code, this will show you the whole
+function that's being changed in a patch. One of the things that often
+go wrong during backports is that something else in the function changed
+on either of the branches that you're backporting from or to. By
+including the whole function in the diff you get more context and can
+more easily spot problems that might otherwise go unnoticed.
+
+Refactored code
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Something that happens quite often is that code gets refactored by
+"factoring out" a common code sequence or pattern into a helper
+function. When backporting patches to an area where such a refactoring
+has taken place, you effectively need to do the reverse when
+backporting: a patch to a single location may need to be applied to
+multiple locations in the backported version. (One giveaway for this
+scenario is that a function was renamed -- but that's not always the
+case.)
+
+To avoid incomplete backports, it's worth trying to figure out if the
+patch fixes a bug that appears in more than one place. One way to do
+this would be to use ``git grep``. (This is actually a good idea to do
+in general, not just for backports.) If you do find that the same kind
+of fix would apply to other places, it's also worth seeing if those
+places exist upstream -- if they don't, it's likely the patch may need
+to be adjusted. ``git log`` is your friend to figure out what happened
+to these areas as ``git blame`` won't show you code that has been
+removed.
+
+If you do find other instances of the same pattern in the upstream tree
+and you're not sure whether it's also a bug, it may be worth asking the
+patch author. It's not uncommon to find new bugs during backporting!
+
+Verifying the result
+====================
+
+colordiff
+---------
+
+Having committed a conflict-free new patch, you can now compare your
+patch to the original patch. It is highly recommended that you use a
+tool such as `colordiff`_ that can show two files side by side and color
+them according to the changes between them::
+
+    colordiff -yw -W 200 <(git diff -W <upstream commit>^-) <(git diff -W HEAD^-) | less -SR
+
+.. _colordiff: https://www.colordiff.org/
+
+Here, ``-y`` means to do a side-by-side comparison; ``-w`` ignores
+whitespace, and ``-W 200`` sets the width of the output (as otherwise it
+will use 130 by default, which is often a bit too little).
+
+The ``rev^-`` syntax is a handy shorthand for ``rev^..rev``, essentially
+giving you just the diff for that single commit; also see
+the official `git rev-parse documentation`_.
+
+.. _git rev-parse documentation: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rev-parse#_other_rev_parent_shorthand_notations
+
+Again, note the inclusion of ``-W`` for ``git diff``; this ensures that
+you will see the full function for any function that has changed.
+
+One incredibly important thing that colordiff does is to highlight lines
+that are different. For example, if an error-handling ``goto`` has
+changed labels between the original and backported patch, colordiff will
+show these side-by-side but highlighted in a different color.  Thus, it
+is easy to see that the two ``goto`` statements are jumping to different
+labels. Likewise, lines that were not modified by either patch but
+differ in the context will also be highlighted and thus stand out during
+a manual inspection.
+
+Of course, this is just a visual inspection; the real test is building
+and running the patched kernel (or program).
+
+Build testing
+-------------
+
+We won't cover runtime testing here, but it can be a good idea to build
+just the files touched by the patch as a quick sanity check. For the
+Linux kernel you can build single files like this, assuming you have the
+``.config`` and build environment set up correctly::
+
+    make path/to/file.o
+
+Note that this won't discover linker errors, so you should still do a
+full build after verifying that the single file compiles. By compiling
+the single file first you can avoid having to wait for a full build *in
+case* there are compiler errors in any of the files you've changed.
+
+Runtime testing
+---------------
+
+Even a successful build or boot test is not necessarily enough to rule
+out a missing dependency somewhere. Even though the chances are small,
+there could be code changes where two independent changes to the same
+file result in no conflicts, no compile-time errors, and runtime errors
+only in exceptional cases.
+
+One concrete example of this was a pair of patches to the system call
+entry code where the first patch saved/restored a register and a later
+patch made use of the same register somewhere in the middle of this
+sequence. Since there was no overlap between the changes, one could
+cherry-pick the second patch, have no conflicts, and believe that
+everything was fine, when in fact the code was now scribbling over an
+unsaved register.
+
+Although the vast majority of errors will be caught during compilation
+or by superficially exercising the code, the only way to *really* verify
+a backport is to review the final patch with the same level of scrutiny
+as you would (or should) give to any other patch. Having unit tests and
+regression tests or other types of automatic testing can help increase
+the confidence in the correctness of a backport.
+
+Submitting backports to stable
+==============================
+
+As the stable maintainers try to cherry-pick mainline fixes onto their
+stable kernels, they may send out emails asking for backports when when
+encountering conflicts, see e.g.
+<https://lore.kernel.org/stable/2023101528-jawed-shelving-071a@gregkh/>.
+These emails typically include the exact steps you need to cherry-pick
+the patch to the correct tree and submit the patch.
+
+One thing to make sure is that your changelog conforms to the expected
+format::
+
+  <original patch title>
+  
+  [ Upstream commit <mainline rev> ]
+  
+  <rest of the original changelog>
+  [ <summary of the conflicts and their resolutions> ]
+  Signed-off-by: <your name and email>
+
+The "Upstream commit" line is sometimes slightly different depending on
+the stable version. Older version used this format::
+
+  commit <mainline rev> upstream.
+
+It is most common to indicate the kernel version the patch applies to
+in the email subject line (using e.g.
+``git send-email --subject-prefix='PATCH 6.1.y'``), but you can also put
+it in the Signed-off-by:-area or below the ``---`` line.
+
+The stable maintainers expect separate submissions for each active
+stable version, and each submission should also be tested separately.
+
+A few final words of advice
+===========================
+
+1) Approach the backporting process with humility.
+2) Understand the patch you are backporting; this means reading both
+   the changelog and the code.
+3) Be honest about your confidence in the result when submitting the
+   patch.
+4) Ask relevant maintainers for explicit acks.
+
+Examples
+========
+
+The above shows roughly the idealized process of backporting a patch.
+For a more concrete example, see this video tutorial where two patches
+are backported from mainline to stable:
+`Backporting Linux Kernel Patches`_.
+
+.. _Backporting Linux Kernel Patches: https://youtu.be/sBR7R1V2FeA
diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
index b48da698d6..bb96ca0f77 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils.
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
 GNU C                  5.1              gcc --version
 Clang/LLVM (optional)  11.0.0           clang --version
-Rust (optional)        1.71.1           rustc --version
+Rust (optional)        1.73.0           rustc --version
 bindgen (optional)     0.65.1           bindgen --version
 GNU make               3.82             make --version
 bash                   4.2              bash --version
diff --git a/Documentation/process/index.rst b/Documentation/process/index.rst
index b501cd9770..a1daa309b5 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/index.rst
@@ -66,12 +66,13 @@ lack of a better place.
    :maxdepth: 1
 
    applying-patches
+   backporting
    adding-syscalls
    magic-number
    volatile-considered-harmful
    botching-up-ioctls
    clang-format
-   ../riscv/patch-acceptance
+   ../arch/riscv/patch-acceptance
    ../core-api/unaligned-memory-access
 
 .. only::  subproject and html
diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index 09dcf6377c..84ee60fcee 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -193,9 +193,23 @@ Review timelines
 Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than
 48h). But be patient, if your patch is active in patchwork (i.e. it's
 listed on the project's patch list) the chances it was missed are close to zero.
-Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
-patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
-bottom of the priority list.
+
+The high volume of development on netdev makes reviewers move on
+from discussions relatively quickly. New comments and replies
+are very unlikely to arrive after a week of silence. If a patch
+is no longer active in patchwork and the thread went idle for more
+than a week - clarify the next steps and/or post the next version.
+
+For RFC postings specifically, if nobody responded in a week - reviewers
+either missed the posting or have no strong opinions. If the code is ready,
+repost as a PATCH.
+
+Emails saying just "ping" or "bump" are considered rude. If you can't figure
+out the status of the patch from patchwork or where the discussion has
+landed - describe your best guess and ask if it's correct. For example::
+
+  I don't understand what the next steps are. Person X seems to be unhappy
+  with A, should I do B and repost the patches?
 
 .. _Changes requested:
 
@@ -441,6 +455,21 @@ in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI.
 new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under
 ``tools/testing/selftests/``.
 
+Reviewer guidance
+-----------------
+
+Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged,
+regardless of the level of expertise. For general guidance and
+helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`.
+
+It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level
+of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about
+their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow.
+
+Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth
+review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial or subjective
+matters like code formatting, tags etc.
+
 Testimonials / feedback
 -----------------------
 
diff --git a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
index 5a6993795b..692a3ba56c 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst
@@ -66,15 +66,32 @@ lifted, in perpetuity.
 Coordination with other groups
 ------------------------------
 
-The kernel security team strongly recommends that reporters of potential
-security issues NEVER contact the "linux-distros" mailing list until
-AFTER discussing it with the kernel security team.  Do not Cc: both
-lists at once.  You may contact the linux-distros mailing list after a
-fix has been agreed on and you fully understand the requirements that
-doing so will impose on you and the kernel community.
-
-The different lists have different goals and the linux-distros rules do
-not contribute to actually fixing any potential security problems.
+While the kernel security team solely focuses on getting bugs fixed,
+other groups focus on fixing issues in distros and coordinating
+disclosure between operating system vendors.  Coordination is usually
+handled by the "linux-distros" mailing list and disclosure by the
+public "oss-security" mailing list, both of which are closely related
+and presented in the linux-distros wiki:
+<https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros>
+
+Please note that the respective policies and rules are different since
+the 3 lists pursue different goals.  Coordinating between the kernel
+security team and other teams is difficult since for the kernel security
+team occasional embargoes (as subject to a maximum allowed number of
+days) start from the availability of a fix, while for "linux-distros"
+they start from the initial post to the list regardless of the
+availability of a fix.
+
+As such, the kernel security team strongly recommends that as a reporter
+of a potential security issue you DO NOT contact the "linux-distros"
+mailing list UNTIL a fix is accepted by the affected code's maintainers
+and you have read the distros wiki page above and you fully understand
+the requirements that contacting "linux-distros" will impose on you and
+the kernel community.  This also means that in general it doesn't make
+sense to Cc: both lists at once, except maybe for coordination if and
+while an accepted fix has not yet been merged.  In other words, until a
+fix is accepted do not Cc: "linux-distros", and after it's merged do not
+Cc: the kernel security team.
 
 CVE assignment
 --------------
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 41f1e07abf..1704f1c686 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -101,6 +101,19 @@ comment:
      git cherry-pick fd21073
      git cherry-pick <this commit>
 
+   Note that for a patch series, you do not have to list as prerequisites the
+   patches present in the series itself. For example, if you have the following
+   patch series:
+
+   .. code-block:: none
+
+     patch1
+     patch2
+
+   where patch2 depends on patch1, you do not have to list patch1 as
+   prerequisite of patch2 if you have already marked patch1 for stable
+   inclusion.
+
  * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
    the following format in the sign-off area:
 
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index efac910e26..86d346bcb8 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -327,6 +327,8 @@ politely and address the problems they have pointed out.  When sending a next
 version, add a ``patch changelog`` to the cover letter or to individual patches
 explaining difference against previous submission (see
 :ref:`the_canonical_patch_format`).
+Notify people that commented on your patch about new versions by adding them to
+the patches CC list.
 
 See Documentation/process/email-clients.rst for recommendations on email
 clients and mailing list etiquette.
@@ -366,10 +368,10 @@ busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
 
 Once upon a time, patches used to disappear into the void without comment,
 but the development process works more smoothly than that now.  You should
-receive comments within a week or so; if that does not happen, make sure
-that you have sent your patches to the right place.  Wait for a minimum of
-one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers - possibly longer during
-busy times like merge windows.
+receive comments within a few weeks (typically 2-3); if that does not
+happen, make sure that you have sent your patches to the right place.
+Wait for a minimum of one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers
+- possibly longer during busy times like merge windows.
 
 It's also ok to resend the patch or the patch series after a couple of
 weeks with the word "RESEND" added to the subject line::