From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f71.google.com (mail-pl0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BDC6B026E for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f71.google.com with SMTP id o3-v6so10589319pls.11 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0108.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [104.47.32.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q21-v6si11640435pls.3.2018.04.16.09.19.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:19:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:19:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20180416161911.GA2341@sasha-vm> References: <20180409001936.162706-1-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180409001936.162706-15-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180409082246.34hgp3ymkfqke3a4@pathway.suse.cz> <20180415144248.GP2341@sasha-vm> <20180416093058.6edca0bb@gandalf.local.home> <20180416113629.2474ae74@gandalf.local.home> <20180416160200.GY2341@sasha-vm> <20180416121224.2138b806@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180416121224.2138b806@gandalf.local.home> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Linus Torvalds , Petr Mladek , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Cong Wang , Dave Hansen , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Peter Zijlstra , Jan Kara , Mathieu Desnoyers , Tetsuo Handa , Byungchul Park , Tejun Heo , Pavel Machek On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000 >Sasha Levin 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.=