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

Pavel Machek
2018-04-16T16:39:56Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2318 bytes --]

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 <pavel@ucw.cz> 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 that
> >> 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.

> >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 your
> 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.

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...

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 --]