Re: Proposed stable release changes

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 09:03:12PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Suspend/Resume is broken on a variety of Thinkpad T400 and T500
> machines in 3.10.  This was true with 3.10.0 afaik.  Current thinking
> is that it's related to the Intel mei/mei_me driver(s).  Blacklisting
> those seems to fix things for a number of users.  There are patches in
> 3.11-rcX, but the "fix" highlighted doesn't fix it.

I have heard of mei issues recently, but no real "this is a problem"
type thing.  There are some patches queued up for 3.12 in that area, if
they are needed earlier, that would be great for me, as a subsystem
maintainer, to know.

> I'm aware I'm reporting issues that you either already knew about or
> were already fixed.  The problem we have is that we roll out a new
> stable release and then we get bug reports for 2 weeks because not
> everyone updates as frequently as stable releases, etc.  So something
> that may seem to impact a small number of users at the time winds up
> actually impacting lots of users once it rolls out in a distro.  As
> far as I know, Fedora is possibly the only distro actually pushing
> stable release kernels out on a normal basis.  I'd love to be wrong on
> that point.

The openSUSE Tumbleweed disto also pushes out these stable kernels.  But
there's only an "estimated" 8-10 thousand users of that openSUSE
"flavor", while smaller than what Fedora has, it's better than nothing.

> In the future, if we can get the information from the end user in
> time, I'll be happy to forward issues that aren't already reported
> onwards.  Or if you still want to hear about it, I can chime in on the
> existing threads with bugzilla numbers.  I'm also willing to do a
> monthly "patches we're carrying not in stable" report if people find
> that helpful.

I would love that report, one of the things I keep asking for is for
people to send the patches that distros have that are not in stable to
me, as those obviously are things that are needed for a valid reason
that everyone should be able to benifit from.

> I'll likely be doing that within Fedora already and I'm happy to send
> it to stable@, even if those patches aren't exactly stable-rules
> matching.

If they aren't "allowed" by the current rules, I'd be interested to know
why, unless it's the "add a new feature" type thing, which makes sense
why I couldn't take them.

> We did that when kernel.org went down and it helped then, just not
> sure how much it would help now or if people care.

I care :)

thanks,

greg k-h