Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes | From | Thomas Backlund <> | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:04:26 +0300 |
| |
Den 19.04.2018 kl. 16:59, skrev Greg KH: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:41:33PM +0300, Thomas Backlund wrote: >> Den 16-04-2018 kl. 19:19, skrev Sasha Levin: >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000 >>>> Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility": >>>>> we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable. >>>>> If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way. >>>> >>>> Wait! What does that mean? What's the purpose of stable if it is as >>>> broken as mainline? >>> >>> This just means that if there is a fix that went in mainline, and the >>> fix is broken somehow, we'd rather take the broken fix than not. >>> >>> In this scenario, *something* will be broken, it's just a matter of >>> what. We'd rather have the same thing broken between mainline and >>> stable. >>> >> >> Yeah, but _intentionally_ breaking existing setups to stay "bug compatible" >> _is_ a _regression_ you _really_ _dont_ want in a stable >> supported distro. Because end-users dont care about upstream breaking >> stuff... its the distro that takes the heat for that... >> >> Something "already broken" is not a regression... >> >> As distro maintainer that means one now have to review _every_ patch that >> carries "AUTOSEL", follow all the mail threads that comes up about it, then >> track if it landed in -stable queue, and read every response and possible >> objection to all patches in the -stable queue a second time around... then >> check if it still got included in final stable point relase and then either >> revert them in distro kernel or go track down all the follow-up fixes >> needed... >> >> Just to avoid being "bug compatible with master" > > I've done this "bug compatible" "breakage" more than the AUTOSEL stuff > has in the past, so you had better also be reviewing all of my normal > commits as well :) >
Yeah, I do... and same goes there ... if there is a known issue, then same procedure... Either revert, or try to track down fixes...
> Anyway, we are trying not to do this, but it does, and will, > occasionally happen. Look, we just did that for one platform for > 4.9.94! And the key to all of this is good testing, which we are now > doing, and hopefully you are also doing as well.
Yeah, but having to test stuff with known breakages is no fun, so we try to avoid that
-- Thomas
| |