From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f198.google.com (mail-io0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362136B0023 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io0-f198.google.com with SMTP id t5so7242457ioc.1 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0109.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [104.47.38.109]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f204-v6si5839732itc.76.2018.04.16.09.28.09 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:28:09 -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 16:28:00 +0000 Message-ID: <20180416162757.GB2341@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> <20180416153031.GA5039@amd> <20180416155031.GX2341@sasha-vm> <20180416160608.GA7071@amd> <20180416122019.1c175925@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180416122019.1c175925@gandalf.local.home> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <32A693D44F62364C9CE7D7F0F3157A72@namprd21.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Pavel Machek , 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 On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:06:08 +0200 >Pavel Machek 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. >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.=