From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E086B0027 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:43:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id b11-v6so10639614pla.19 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0135.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [104.47.32.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id az2-v6si11463770plb.540.2018.04.16.09.43.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:43:16 -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 16:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: <20180416164310.GF2341@sasha-vm> References: <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> <20180416162757.GB2341@sasha-vm> <20180416163952.GA8740@amd> In-Reply-To: <20180416163952.GA8740@amd> 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: Pavel Machek Cc: Steven Rostedt , 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 , Greg KH On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:39:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >On Mon 2018-04-16 16:28:00, Sasha Levin wrote: >> 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 tha= t >> >> 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. > >Well, yes, testing is required when moving from 4.14 to 4.15. But >testing should not be required when moving from 4.14.5 to 4.14.6. You always have to test, even without the AUTOSEL stuff. The rejection rate was 2% even before AUTOSEL, so there was always a chance of regression when upgrading minor stable versions. >> >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 you= r >> 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. > >So you take everything and put it into stable? I don't think that's a >solution. I don't think I ever said that I want to put *everything* >If you are worried about people not putting enough "Stable: " tags in >their commits, perhaps you can write them emails "hey, I think this >should go to stable, do you agree"? You should get people marking >their commits themselves pretty quickly... Greg has been doing this for years, ask him how that worked out for him.=