From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A9DC1975A for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:35:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011E02072E for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:35:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584909301; bh=qUrulLhd4Y0KFwsOkytBopO2azVJZkm2UDeUUR6e3jI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=OYwhK3LvK61nJuddccmq/Pt+koLbHOZf8mncUFAB8T9o0CAxXV/mv74YMFWIVF2fz BI2bNjnh0K+ranVxMgPdac4DmiZMKUTqjNfS6fLeCbo8OgxHGoyR0rfAqev5WqbM7/ gpvsEvE7gT6qtxAKFe2IqwYi1u/k38PK9xzVM91w= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726664AbgCVUfA (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:35:00 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:55740 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726623AbgCVUfA (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:35:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (c-73-47-72-35.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.47.72.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2229B20722; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:34:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584909299; bh=qUrulLhd4Y0KFwsOkytBopO2azVJZkm2UDeUUR6e3jI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=yAZ2wFYF379++8WuK5/OS0buoaLaIy2O5/FGAt8ce9e0OsKUYQp/bdCBJZkhZuacS O8yv8+qs1E+C6/chp2j/DZW0g0YXN06HevShMRBTOH33uwlsebxzYH8xdDhpOJbpN3 M9SZlRW9E2EaJPbfxgkKHFuSaazQQwUzpRicStD8= Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:34:58 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Pavel Machek Cc: Guenter Roeck , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org, ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hao Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 00/65] 5.5.11-rc1 review Message-ID: <20200322203458.GR4189@sasha-vm> References: <20200319123926.466988514@linuxfoundation.org> <20200319145900.GC92193@kroah.com> <32c627bf-0e6b-8bc4-88d3-032a69484aa6@roeck-us.net> <20200320144658.GK4189@sasha-vm> <20200322195134.GA3127@duo.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200322195134.GA3127@duo.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 08:51:34PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: >Hi! > >> > > Thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped that patch (others >> > > complained about it for other reasons) and will push out a -rc2 with >> > > that fix. >> > > >> > >> > I did wonder why the offending patch was included, but then I figured that >> > I lost the "we apply too many patches to stable releases" battle, and I didn't >> > want to re-litigate it. >> >> I usually much rather take prerequisite patches rather than do >> backports, which is why that patch was selected. > >Unfortunately, that results in less useful -stable. This is different than the usual "too many patches in -stable" argument you keep bringing up; here we *know* that we need a certain patch, but you claim that I should pick up a piece of code I'm unfamiliar with and try to hammer it to work on an older kernel rather than take a prerequisite patch to do that for me. Not only that in my experience taking prerequisites was the safer option, it's also the case that piling up modified backports causes the stable tree to diverge from upstream, making older trees much more difficult to maintain than what they are now. Does it always work? Obviously not, but it's much easier for reviewers to notice a mistake of bringing in a patch rather than a subtle issue with a backport. I'll happily look at hard data comparing (real) regression rates of cases where prerequisites were taken vs a modified backport of a patch. Please also remember to include cases where the prerequisite patch ended up being a fix on it's own that we should have picked up. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you think that you're contributing to the discussion here. -- Thanks, Sasha