Re: [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:01:26PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:33:34AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.27.3 release.
> >There are 17 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >let us know.  If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and
> >wants to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
> >
> >These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the
> >Cc: line.  If you wish to be a reviewer, please email stable@kernel.org
> >to add your name to the list.  If you want to be off the reviewer list,
> >also email us.
> >
> >Responses should be made by Wed, October 22, 2008 19:00:00 UTC.
> >Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> OK, I realize I'm late.  Apologies in advance for that.
> 
> I don't see how patches 3, 16, and 17 really fit into the "stable"
> rules.  None of them:
> 
> "... fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
>  marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
>  security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short,
>  something critical."
> 
> So, are we being a bit more lax on the requirements for the
> -stable kernels and I missed the memo, or?

3 definitely is "oh that's not good", and 16&17 are just support
for a few new IDs. It's not the first time this happens, and as
long as there are not too many or they don't change the driver's
code, I don't see the problem. It increases the ability for people
to test the kernel and report bugs too BTW.

I think it's better to have strict rules and be lax sometimes
than having no rules at all or being too strict and annoy users.

Willy