Re: [PATCH] x86_64 ia32 syscall restart fix

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* 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. ]

	Ingo