linux-kernel - Re: Patch "sched: Give CPU bound RT tasks preference" has been added to the 2.6.32-longterm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110216092203.GD18842@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:22:03 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, gregkh@...e.de,
	srostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	ghaskins@...ell.com, stable@...nel.org,
	stable-commits@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Patch "sched: Give CPU bound RT tasks preference" has been added
 to the 2.6.32-longterm tree

[ about -stable merge policy ]

* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com> wrote:

> > We try to concentrate on regression fixes though.
> 
> Hi, I cannot fully agree with this. The question is who are "we" here?

It's the upstream policy and the scheduler tree certainly follows it.

I think i remember Linus having stated it before (cannot find the mail), but it's 
pretty common-sense so easy to reproduce (i've Cc:-ed Linus in case he wants to 
chime in):

   The idea is to treat Linus's tree and -stable as an organic whole: so -stable
   is upstream as well, but with *bug* fixes backported. It's emphatically not a 
   separate "for backporting interesting/important bits" tree.

   And as such whatever a maintainer can send to Linus in -rc's (in particular late
   -rc's) is -stable eligible.

   For the rest of patches: generally not eligible, but with common-sense 
   exceptions.

   "It's a nice patch" or "it will obviously not cause problems" or "this is
   important to us" does not make a patch eligible for -stable.

   Adding a -stable tag to a commit and *not* sending it to Linus for the next -rc
   also makes a patch almost automatically *not* eligible: if it was not important
   enough to have it in the next -rc then it's doubly not eligible for -stable ...

   I think this common-sense rule is easy to follow:

    " If you ever have to ask yourself whether a patch queued up for -stable is 
      really -stable eligible it probably isnt. "

   It's called -stable for a reason.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/