Message-ID: <20091110041452.GA25575@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:14:52 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:48:31AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> FYI, today i committed a scheduler performance fix that has a number of 
> commit prerequisites for -stable integration. Those commits are not 
> marked -stable.
> 
> Previously, in similar situations, i solved it by email-forwarding the 
> prereq commits to stable@...nel.org. (or by waiting for your 'it does 
> not apply to -stable' email and figuring out the prereqs then.)
> 
> But we can move this into the Git commit space too, and minimize the 
> work for the -stable team, via a new -stable tag variant. So with this 
> new commit i started using a new tagging scheme in the commit itself:
> 
>  Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for an idle shared cache
>  Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
>  Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
>  Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x
>  LKML-Reference: <1257821402.5648.17.camel@...ge.simson.net>
>  Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> The tag sequence has the meaning of:
> 
>   git cherry-pick a1f84a3
>   git cherry-pick 1b9508f
>   git cherry-pick fd21073
>   git cherry-pick <this commit>
> 
> and i'm wondering whether this tagging scheme is fine with your -stable 
> scripting, etc.

It would work just fine.

I only rely on one main script right now, one that runs from James's
directory on kernel.org that picks out the "Cc: <stable@...nel.org>"
lines and forwards the full commit message to stable@...nel.org.

Then I have a simple script that I just pass the git commit id and
formats it properly for inclusion on the quilt tree for the stable
queue.  If you list the other git commit ids that are needed as a
prerequesite as you did above, that's trivial to also pick out.

So I think this is good for me and my workflow.

> A further question is, i can see using this tagging scheme in the future 
> in merge commits log messages too - will your scripts notice that too?

Hm, I don't think we look at merges as there's nothing there to actually
commit.

> For example if there's a few commits left in tip:*/urgent branches 
> (tip:sched/urgent, tip:core/urgent, tip:x86/urgent, etc.) by the time 
> v2.6.32 is released, i will then merge them into tip:sched/core, 
> tip:core/core, tip:x86/core, etc. - and i could use the merge commit as 
> a notification area to 'activate' them for -stable backporting via a 
> merge commit.
> 
> This is how such merge commits would look like:
> 
>   Merge branch 'core/urgent' into core/rcu
> 
>   Merge reason: Pick up urgent fixes that did not make it into .32.0
> 
>   Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: 83f5b01: rcu: Fix long-grace-period race
>   Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> This is not so rare of a situation as it might seem - for the trees i 
> maintain it happens in almost every release cycle - i typically skip 
> urgent branch merges after -rc8/-rc9, unless they are very-very-urgent 
> fixes - but they'd still be eligible for -stable.

Ok, that would be good and fine with me.

James, would your script pick this up, or does it need to also pay
attention to merge commits?

> I've attached the full commit below. The prereq commits are not uptream 
> yet, and they dont carry a -stable backporting tag as the -stable 
> relevance was not anticipated at that point yet. They will all be 
> upstream in the next merge window when Linus merges the relevant tree - 
> and then all these tags become visible to the -stable team's scripts.
> 
> What do you think about this new -stable tagging variant? To me it looks 
> quite intuitive, less error-prone and it is more informative as well. 
> Furthermore, it gives us some freedom to mark commits as backport 
> candidates later on. I kept them oneliners for the purpose of making 
> them all self-sufficient tags.

I agree.

> ( Sidenote: i wouldnt go as far as to generate null Git commits to mark
>   backports after the fact - this scheme is for a series of commits that 
>   get 'completed' - there's usually a final followup commit that can 
>   embedd this information. )

That's fine, don't worry about this.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists