Adding upstream version 6.1.76.upstream/6.1.76upstream

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

1 files changed, 204 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2fd8aa593
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+.. _stable_kernel_rules:
+
+Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
+===============================================================
+
+Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
+"-stable" tree:
+
+ - It must be obviously correct and tested.
+ - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
+ - It must fix only one thing.
+ - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
+   problem..." type thing).
+ - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
+   marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
+   security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short, something
+   critical.
+ - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
+   be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
+   As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
+   regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
+   maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
+   exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
+ - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
+ - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
+   race can be exploited is also provided.
+ - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
+   whitespace cleanups, etc).
+ - It must follow the
+   :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
+   rules.
+ - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
+
+
+Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
+----------------------------------------------------
+
+.. note::
+
+   Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
+   process but should follow the procedures in
+   :ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
+
+For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+.. _option_1:
+
+Option 1
+********
+
+To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
+
+in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
+the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
+or subsystem maintainer.
+
+.. _option_2:
+
+Option 2
+********
+
+After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
+stable@vger.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
+why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
+be applied to.
+
+.. _option_3:
+
+Option 3
+********
+
+Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
+stable@vger.kernel.org.  You must note the upstream commit ID in the
+changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
+it to be applied to.
+
+:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, is the easiest and most common.
+:ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
+worthy at the time it is applied to a public git tree (for instance, because
+it deserves more regression testing first).  :ref:`option_3` is especially
+useful if the original upstream patch needs to be backported (for example
+the backport needs some special handling due to e.g. API changes).
+
+Note that for :ref:`option_3`, if the patch deviates from the original
+upstream patch (for example because it had to be backported) this must be very
+clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
+
+The upstream commit ID must be specified with a separate line above the commit
+text, like this:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+    commit <sha1> upstream.
+
+or alternatively:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+    [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
+
+Additionally, some patches submitted via :ref:`option_1` may have additional
+patch prerequisites which can be cherry-picked. This can be specified in the
+following format in the sign-off area:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
+     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
+
+The tag sequence has the meaning of:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     git cherry-pick a1f84a3
+     git cherry-pick 1b9508f
+     git cherry-pick fd21073
+     git cherry-pick <this commit>
+
+Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites.  This can be
+specified in the following format in the sign-off area:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
+
+The tag has the meaning of:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     git cherry-pick <this commit>
+
+For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
+
+Following the submission:
+
+ - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the
+   queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected.  This response might take a few
+   days, according to the developer's schedules.
+ - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by
+   other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
+
+
+Review cycle
+------------
+
+ - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches will be
+   sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the affected area of
+   the patch (unless the submitter is the maintainer of the area) and CC: to
+   the linux-kernel mailing list.
+ - The review committee has 48 hours in which to ACK or NAK the patch.
+ - If the patch is rejected by a member of the committee, or linux-kernel
+   members object to the patch, bringing up issues that the maintainers and
+   members did not realize, the patch will be dropped from the queue.
+ - The ACKed patches will be posted again as part of release candidate (-rc)
+   to be tested by developers and testers.
+ - Usually only one -rc release is made, however if there are any outstanding
+   issues, some patches may be modified or dropped or additional patches may
+   be queued. Additional -rc releases are then released and tested until no
+   issues are found.
+ - Responding to the -rc releases can be done on the mailing list by sending
+   a "Tested-by:" email with any testing information desired. The "Tested-by:"
+   tags will be collected and added to the release commit.
+ - At the end of the review cycle, the new -stable release will be released
+   containing all the queued and tested patches.
+ - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from the
+   security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle.
+   Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure.
+
+Trees
+-----
+
+ - The queues of patches, for both completed versions and in progress
+   versions can be found at:
+
+	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
+
+ - The finalized and tagged releases of all stable kernels can be found
+   in separate branches per version at:
+
+	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
+
+ - The release candidate of all stable kernel versions can be found at:
+
+        https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/
+
+   .. warning::
+      The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue tree and
+      will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should only be
+      used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
+
+
+Review committee
+----------------
+
+ - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for
+   this task, and a few that haven't.