lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86_64 ia32 syscall restart fix
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:37:05 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > and one area where commit messages are totally important IMO is bug
> > forensics. For every regression we find we try to put in the commit ID
> > that broke it. Information like that is vital to have a good (and
> > objective) picture about how bugs get into and get out of the kernel
> > and it also alerts us to change/improve infrastructure if certain
> > categories of bugs happen too often.
>
> another "commit space" feature Thomas and me was thinking about was to
> put in "backport suggestions" for -stable the following way:
>
> Backport-suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>
> and the -stable tree could then notice it, and once it has been
> backported, they could put in their "done" notifiers via:
>
> Backported-from: 67ca7bde2e9d3516b5
>
> or:
>
> Backport-rejected: 67ca7bde2e9d3516b5
>
> This way the act of suggesting backports to the -stable tree (and their
> rejection) could be fully automated, and the answer to the rather
> difficult question:
>
> "has -stable picked up all backport requests, and if not, why?"
>
> could be scripted up.
>
> A further (small) variation of this scheme: if a fix is noticed to be a
> backport candidate later on, or a user notices that a fix that has gone
> upstream fixes a -stable bug too, this information could be signalled in
> a separate, special, empty commit:
>
> Backport-suggested-by: 67ca7bde2e9d35, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>
>
> this way subsystem maintainers could have a reliable protocol of getting
> fixes integrated into -stable - purely via the commit messages in your
> tree.
>
> ... but then we decided that handling x86 architecture maintainance is
> work enough already, without us complicating our own life any further
> ;-)
>
> But the idea is solid nevertheless, and if everyone did it the -stable
> guys would have a much easier life as well :-) [ We could start doing it
> in x86.git if there's general agreement and if the -stable guys
> specifically asked for this. ]
>

I believe the -stable guys have a bot which trolls the mainline commits
mailing list for "cc:.*stable@kernel.org". So anybody anywhere in the
patch delivery chain can append "Cc: <stable@kernel.org>" and things
should get appropriate consideration.

The place where I suspect there is a lot of lossage is people simply not
thinking about whether a fix should be backported. I'm forever fussing
about that for the patches I handle (and I still miss some) but I have a
suspicion that not all tree-owners do this fully.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-29 22:07    [W:0.078 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site