Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 03:14:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 05-12-16 14:58:24, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 05-12-16 13:52:36, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:21:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Currently if a patch should aim a stable tree backport one should add
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # $version
> > > > > 
> > > > > to the s-o-b block. This has two major disadvantages a) it spams the
> > > > > stable mailing list with patches which are just discussed and not merged
> > > > > yet
> > > > 
> > > > That's not a problem in that I know I like to see them to give me a
> > > > "heads up" that something is coming down the pipeline soon.
> > > 
> > > Are you really tracking all those discussion to catch resulting patches
> > > in the Linus' tree? I simply fail to see a point having N versions of
> > > the patch on the stable mailing list before it gets picked up from the
> > > _Linus'_ anyayw.
> > 
> > I do scan them, sometimes I even find problems with them (like a zram
> > "fix" that went by this weekend.)  So yes, it is always good to have
> > more reviewers on patches, don't you think?
> 
> Yes I do agree that more review is better. But then the stable mailing
> list is a complete failure in that resopect - at least for me. Why?
> Simply because it doesn't contain discussion for the stable inclusion
> but rather something that eventually might happen to become stable
> material. This what I call noise and the reason why I've stopped
> following the stable ML.

That doesn't make sense, I want to see patches that are being proposed
for the stable kernels _before_ they get into the maintainers and
Linus's tree, as then, it is almost always too late.

I will point out the zram patch this weekend as an example of that,
where if the original had gone in, it would be a while before the
"fixup" would have then gone in, and the abi deprecation would probably
have missed 4.11 entirely.

Don't you want to catch things earlier rather than later?

thanks,

greg k-h