From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f199.google.com (mail-wr0-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2506B0027 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f199.google.com with SMTP id v11so13628120wri.13 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. [195.113.26.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f90si5143472wmh.128.2018.04.16.09.28.51 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:28:50 +0200 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes Message-ID: <20180416162850.GA7553@amd> 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> <20180416161412.GZ2341@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180416161412.GZ2341@sasha-vm> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sasha Levin Cc: Linus Torvalds , Steven Rostedt , 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 --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >> Is there a reason not to take LED fixes if they fix a bug and don't > >> cause a regression? Sure, we can draw some arbitrary line, maybe > >> designate some subsystems that are more "important" than others, but > >> what's the point? > > > >There's a tradeoff. > > > >You want to fix serious bugs in stable, and you really don't want > >regressions in stable. And ... stable not having 1000s of patches > >would be nice, too. >=20 > I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the > regression rate: how many patches broke something? >=20 > Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were > seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing? Regression rate should not be the only criteria. More patches mean bigger chance customer's patches will have a conflict with something in -stable, for example. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlrUz0IACgkQMOfwapXb+vLVqgCgpovthKKD5cKnjDTF2vKcm28Z S60AoKn4WoAGsERhssfgqOAyyKo9t5IB =mh5U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ibTvN161/egqYuK8--