Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

Jiri Kosina
2013-07-16T23:15:35Z

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:

> > > > But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
> > > > So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
> > > > patch for sysfs that I backported too far in the version numbers (my
> > > > fault.)
> > > >
> > > > Given the huge number of stable patches over the past few years, only
> > > > having 2 patches be an issue sounds like things are working well for
> > > > people here.
> > > >
> > > > If I don't get pushback, with specifics, from the distros, I will not
> > > > know what to change, so if people can provide me that, it will help out
> > > > a lot.
> > >
> > > I agree ... I think Ji?? and his Red Hat equivalent need to pipe up and
> > > give us more examples of the problems they've been having.
> >
> > I am still continuing with my pushback against the /dev/random revamp that
> > happened in -stable; at least in the form it happened. I still strongly
> > believe it's something that's not a stable material. But that's happening
> > in parallel in a different thread already.
> >
> > Okay, if you want another example:
> >
> > commit a6aa749906b92eaec6ca0469f90f35de26044d90
> > Author: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>
> > Date: Thu Dec 20 15:05:14 2012 -0800
> >
> > drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c: fetch dmi version from SMBIOS if it exists
> >
> > While this is a correct fix for major kernel release, as it achieves
> > correctness by checking SMBIOS version properly and behaving according to
> > the spec, it actually causes an userspace ABI regression in some sense, as
> > it just changes byte order of /sys/class/dmi/id/product_uuid on certain
> > systems.
> >
> > Which is something I absolutely *do not* expect from a minor release of
> > branch which is called "stable".
>
> As you pointed out, your definition of "stable" is one that the
> enterprise distros have created, and might be totally different from my
> view of what "stable" is :)

Absolutely, this is why I think discussing this would be very healthy.

- first to clarify what the consumers of your branch are expecting it to
be
- then making clear what your understanding of "stable" is
- then clarifying whether the stable branch is there for you or for its
consumers :)
- finally finding some intersection (some time in the future :) ) that'll
suit all parties

> And also, as Ben pointed out, this was probably wrong, and someone
> should have told me about this, so I could have reverted it. Please do
> so the next time.

I thought that one of your golas was to improve scalability.

"Everyone is reviewing everything" is not my understanding of scalability;
hence my proposals.

Thanks, Greg.

--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs