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 19:25:49 +0300 |
| |
Den 19.04.2018 kl. 18:57, skrev Greg KH: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:16:26PM +0300, Thomas Backlund wrote: >> Den 19.04.2018 kl. 17:22, skrev Greg KH: >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:05:45PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >>>> On Thu 19-04-18 15:59:43, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> 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 :) >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, we are trying not to do this, but it does, and will, >>>>> occasionally happen. >>>> >>>> Sure, that's understood. So this was just misunderstanding. Sasha's >>>> original comment really sounded like "bug compatibility" with current >>>> master is desirable and that made me go "Are you serious?" as well... >>> >>> As I said before in this thread, yes, sometimes I do this on purpose. >>> >> >> And I guess this is the one that gets people the feeling that >> "stable is not as stable as it used to be" ... > > It's always been this way, it's just that no one noticed :) >
:)
>>> As an specific example, see a recent bluetooth patch that caused a >>> regression on some chromebook devices. The chromeos developers >>> rightfully complainied, and I left the commit in there to provide the >>> needed "leverage" on the upstream developers to fix this properly. >>> Otherwise if I had reverted the stable patch, when people move to a >>> newer kernel version, things break, and no one remembers why. >> >> I do understand what you are trying to do... >> >> But from my distro hat on I have to treat things differently (and I dont >> think I'm alone doing it this way...) >> >> Known breakages gets reverted even before it hits QA, so endusers wont see >> the issue at all... >> >> So the only ones to see the issue are those building with latest upstream >> without own patches applied... >> >>> >>> I also wrote a long response as to _why_ I do this, and even though it >>> does happen, why it still is worth taking the stable updates. Please >>> see the archives for the full details. I don't want to duplicate this >>> again here. >> >> And we do use latest stable (with some delay as I dont want to overload QA & >> endusers with a new kernel every week :)) > > You need to automate your QA :) >
Yeah, some can be automated... but that means having a lot of different hw to test on... emulators/vms can only test so much...
users part of QA test on a variety of hw with various installs/setups that exposes fun things with some hw :)
>> We just revert known broken (or add known fixes) before releasing them to >> our users > > That's great, and is what you should be doing, nothing wrong there. > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
-- Thomas
| |