From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:58:20 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Sasha Levin Cc: Greg KH , Michael Schmitz , "3.8+" , lkml , Andreas Schwab , alexander.levin@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.18 24/58] Input: atakbd - fix Atari CapsLock behaviour Message-ID: <20181010185820.GI47260@dtor-ws> References: <20181008152523.70705-24-sashal@kernel.org> <20181010142958.GF32006@sasha-vm> <20181010170219.GA47260@dtor-ws> <20181010181148.GI32006@sasha-vm> <20181010182840.GB23517@kroah.com> <20181010184039.GH47260@dtor-ws> <20181010184947.GJ32006@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181010184947.GJ32006@sasha-vm> List-ID: On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:49:47PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:40:39AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:28:40PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:11:48PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > I think Greg's last estimate was that about 1/3 of the kernels in the > > > > wild are custom based on a kernel.org stable kernel, which means that we > > > > have no visibility as to what they do with the kernel. If you don't know > > > > who your users are, how can you prioritize some subsystems over others? > > > > > > The numbers I had was 75% of the images a major cloud provider was using > > > was either a kernel.org stable kernel release, or Debian. The remaining > > > 25% was an "enterprise" kernel including CentOS. > > > > > > Also note that all Android devices are now required to follow the stable > > > kernel releases as well, so add a few more million to that number :) > > > > > > That being said, for a well-maintained subsystem like Input, whose > > > maintainer almost always marks patches for stable releases, having them > > > picked up by the autobot is unusual. Dmitry, if you want your subsytem > > > to be excluded, just let Sasha know, other subsystems have been excluded > > > at the maintainer's request, and that's fine. > > > > I am hesitant to request to exclude input from autosel just yet, on an > > account that I might miss something. But I would like autosel to acquire > > more smarts and be less trigger happy. I think it would be for the best > > for everyone. > > Keep in mind that it learns based on your choices, so maybe in a while > it will be a perfect fit :) > > Maybe to make it easier, just reply with NAK on the patch(es) you don't > want in the tree and I'll drop them. OK, I will be doing it then. Should it be a certain string so you can script or a free form? > > I was discussing more about the general case and stable tree policy > rather than drivers/input and AUTOSEL, and didn't mean to try and > dictate what we'll take or not. Sorry! Me too and I am not trying to be dismissive of your effort, I am just trying to have discussion on the criteria that we should use for stable candidates. Thanks. -- Dmitry