Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes

Pavel Machek
2018-05-03T09:47:27Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2295 bytes --]

On Mon 2018-04-16 21:18:47, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:43:28PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >> So I think that Linus's claim that users come first applies here as
> >> well. If there's a user that cares about a particular feature being
> >> broken, then we go ahead and fix his bug rather then ignoring him.
> >
> >So one extreme is fixing -stable *iff* users actually do report an issue.
> >
> >The other extreme is backporting everything that potentially looks like a
> >potential fix of "something" (according to some arbitrary metric),
> >pro-actively.
> >
> >The former voilates the "users first" rule, the latter has a very, very
> >high risk of regressions.
> >
> >So this whole debate is about finding a compromise.
> >
> >My gut feeling always was that the statement in
> >
> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >
> >is very reasonable, but making the process way more "aggresive" when
> >backporting patches is breaking much of its original spirit for me.
>
> I agree that as an enterprise distro taking everything from -stable
> isn't the best idea. Ideally you'd want to be close to the first

Original purpose of -stable was "to be common base of enterprise
distros" and our documentation still says it is.

> I think that we can agree that it's impossible to expect every single
> Linux user to go on LKML and complain about a bug he encountered, so the
> rule quickly becomes "It must fix a real bug that can bother
> people".

I think you are playing dangerous word games.

> My "aggressiveness" comes from the whole "bother" part: it doesn't have
> to be critical, it doesn't have to cause data corruption, it doesn't
> have to be a security issue. It's enough that the bug actually affects a
> user in a way he didn't expect it to (if a user doesn't have
> expectations, it would fall under the "This could be a problem..."
> exception.

And it seems documentation says you should be less aggressive and
world tells you they expect to be less aggressive. So maybe that's
what you should do?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]