From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dennis Dalessandro Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 0/8] IB/hfi1, core, rdmavt: Driver fixes for 10/2/2017 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 06:44:29 -0400 Message-ID: <8601bdaa-53cc-e41f-95e6-483af90848b7@intel.com> References: <20171002180204.31117.12254.stgit@scvm10.sc.intel.com> <1507146261.46071.8.camel@redhat.com> <2e195006-92f1-0d6c-1418-5c541f38f8e3@intel.com> <20171005070417.GJ25829@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171005070417.GJ25829@mtr-leonro.local> Content-Language: en-US Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Doug Ledford , Mike Marciniszyn , Jan Sokolowski , Jakub Byczkowski , Andrzej Kacprowski , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Ira Weiny , Stable@vger.kernel.org, Kaike Wan , "Michael J. Ruhl" , Don Hiatt , Niranjana Vishwanathapura , Sebastian Sanchez List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 10/5/2017 3:04 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:22:06PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: >> On 10/4/2017 3:44 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: >>> On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 11:03 -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: >>>> Hi Doug, >>>> There are a couple fixes in here that would have been nice to get >>>> into the RC >>>> cycle, including one marked stable. However I think you will find >>>> them to be >>>> too many LOC for an rc-4 submission so I have sent them in one series >>>> for-next. >>>> Patches 2,3,4 and 5 are the fixes. Patch 2 is small but it's not >>>> really that >>>> important to the end user. >>>> >>>> There are some clean ups in here from Don from the 16B changes. One >>>> takes care >>>> of some sparse warnings and the other two are from a WARN_ON_ONCE >>>> that needed >>>> special cased for OPA. >>>> >>>> Patches can can also be found in my GitHub repo at: >>>> https://github.com/ddalessa/kernel/tree/for-4.15 >>> >>> Hi Denny, >>> >>> I didn't process that you mixed for-rc and for-next stuff in a single >>> thread before I had gone through and looked at the patches and >>> processed them. So, this time they all went to for-next. In the >>> future, you really need patches you want in for-rc separate from the >>> patches intended for for-next. >> >> Maybe I wasn't too clear, I didn't intend any of those to go for-rc. So yep >> for-next was the right target. >> >> I would have liked to get the fixes into -rc but they were just too complex >> for this late in the game is all I meant. > > IMHO, the number of LOCs shouldn't be the gating factor for -rc, but the > severity of fixes yes. Not the gating factor necessarily, but a factor that has to be be weighed against the severity of the bug being fixed. As we get into later -rc cycles the bar for risk vs reward gets raised, not that there should be a limit of X LOC for -rc whatever it's more of an overall assessment of the risk of causing more harm than good. -Denny