From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D7F6B000A for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 05:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 88-v6so11861331wrc.21 for ; Thu, 03 May 2018 02:32:17 -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 o10-v6si4586294wrg.75.2018.05.03.02.32.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 May 2018 02:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 11:32:15 +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: <20180503093214.GB32180@amd> References: <20180416093058.6edca0bb@gandalf.local.home> <20180416113629.2474ae74@gandalf.local.home> <20180416160200.GY2341@sasha-vm> <20180416121224.2138b806@gandalf.local.home> <20180416161911.GA2341@sasha-vm> <20180416123019.4d235374@gandalf.local.home> <20180416163754.GD2341@sasha-vm> <20180416170604.GC11034@amd> <20180416172327.GK2341@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NMuMz9nt05w80d4+" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180416172327.GK2341@sasha-vm> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sasha Levin 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 --NMuMz9nt05w80d4+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > >- It must be obviously correct and tested. > > > >If it introduces new bug, it is not correct, and certainly not > >obviously correct. >=20 > As you might have noticed, we don't strictly follow the rules. Yes, I noticed. And what I'm saying is that perhaps you should follow the rules more strictly. > Take a look at the whole PTI story as an example. It's way more than 100 > lines, it's not obviously corrent, it fixed more than 1 thing, and so > on, and yet it went in -stable! >=20 > Would you argue we shouldn't have backported PTI to -stable? Actually, I was surprised with PTI going to stable. That was clearly against the rules. Maybe the security bug was ugly enough to warrant that. But please don't use it as an argument for applying any random patches... Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --NMuMz9nt05w80d4+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlrq1x4ACgkQMOfwapXb+vIIvwCghIH6ADk+P65RCxtQarChlpTS 4vkAnjYpE+F4FX/4kE6re5OJ/lo449zH =5n+g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NMuMz9nt05w80d4+--