lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes
    Date
    On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:39:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
    >On Mon 2018-04-16 16:28:00, Sasha Levin wrote:
    >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    >> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:06:08 +0200
    >> >Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> That means you want to ignore not-so-serious bugs, because benefit of
    >> >> fixing them is lower than risk of the regressions. I believe bugs that
    >> >> do not bother anyone should _not_ be fixed in stable.
    >> >>
    >> >> That was case of the LED patch. Yes, the commit fixed bug, but it
    >> >> introduced regressions that were fixed by subsequent patches.
    >> >
    >> >I agree. I would disagree that the patch this thread is on should go to
    >> >stable. What's the point of stable if it introduces regressions by
    >> >backporting bug fixes for non major bugs.
    >>
    >> One such reason is that users will then hit the regression when they
    >> upgrade to the next -stable version anyways.
    >
    >Well, yes, testing is required when moving from 4.14 to 4.15. But
    >testing should not be required when moving from 4.14.5 to 4.14.6.

    You always have to test, even without the AUTOSEL stuff. The rejection
    rate was 2% even before AUTOSEL, so there was always a chance of
    regression when upgrading minor stable versions.

    >> >Every fix I make I consider labeling it for stable. The ones I don't, I
    >> >feel the bug fix is not worth the risk of added regressions.
    >> >
    >> >I worry that people will get lazy and stop marking commits for stable
    >> >(or even thinking about it) because they know that there's a bot that
    >> >will pull it for them. That thought crossed my mind. Why do I want to
    >> >label anything stable if a bot will probably catch it. Then I could
    >> >just wait till the bot posts it before I even think about stable.
    >>
    >> People are already "lazy". You are actually an exception for marking your
    >> commits.
    >>
    >> Yes, folks will chime in with "sure, I mark my patches too!", but if you
    >> look at the entire committer pool in the kernel you'll see that most
    >> don't bother with this to begin with.
    >
    >So you take everything and put it into stable? I don't think that's a
    >solution.

    I don't think I ever said that I want to put *everything*

    >If you are worried about people not putting enough "Stable: " tags in
    >their commits, perhaps you can write them emails "hey, I think this
    >should go to stable, do you agree"? You should get people marking
    >their commits themselves pretty quickly...

    Greg has been doing this for years, ask him how that worked out for him.
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-04-16 18:44    [W:4.077 / U:0.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site