Message-ID: <20130712181103.GA6689@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:11:03 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:50:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > Stable rules say: "It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This
> > could be a problem..." type thing). All the above fit that rule.
> 
> You cut out the important part:
> 
>  - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
>    marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
>    security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short, something
>    critical.
> 
> That list is not a "or" list, it's an "and" list - it needs to follow
> *all* the rules. The exception is the "New device IDs and quirks are
> also accepted", which maybe should be made more clearly separate.
> 
> > But are those patches critical ? Sure, people complained about getting alarms
> > on the wrong attribute or not getting alarms when they expected to, but critical ?
> > No, unless some application at some point starts to shut down the system because
> > of a false alarm. So I guess the above should not go into -stable, then.
> 
> Right. And that's what the stable rules say. It's not enough to be a
> "real bug". It needs to be critical. If it's something that has been
> around forever, there needs to be a stronger argument than "I found a
> bug" for marking it for stable.
> 
> > Problem is with "bothers people" vs. "critical".
> 
> There is no "vs".
> 
> The "real bug that bothers people" rule is not meant to be seen as a
> separate rule from the next rule (already quoted above), it needs to
> be *in*addition*to*.
> 
I understand, but that is theory (mathematical interpretation)
vs. reality. The "real bug ... must bother people" is the rule that
is used in practice today. Problem may be that not even that rule
is really followed anymore.

> For example, we have the "causes a build error" case - but that should
> be seen in the "real bug that bothers people" light, and you should
> not mark Kconfig fixes for stable unless they have actually caused
> problems. Why? Because most Kconfig problems tend to be for
> unrealistic situations like "Oh, if I turn off PCI or networking, this
> driver no longer builds". Sure, that is a bug, and it's a bug that
> causes build error, but it's not something that bothers real people,
> because if you turn off networking or turn off PCI, you damn well had
> better also turn off all the other crap you don't need.
> 
> Yes, there are always going to be gray areas. And Greg is obviously a
> much nicer person than I am, so he's likely *always* going to be more
> generous about those gray aras than I would be. And within reason, I
> think that's perfectly fine - if there's a few patches that get marked
> for stable because it's easier for people to sneak them in that way,
> whatever. It becomes a problem only when it gets to be *too* common,
> which is apparently what happened now.
> 
> So I'm not going to argue that your particular patches were the
> problem here. I'm more arguing against your arguments than against the
> patches themselves. I'm not looking for some hard black-and-white
> rules that say "this is exactly how things have to work", because I
> don't think such rules can exist. But I _do_ want people to see the

I am perfectly fine with that, but then you'll have to accept that
the rules will be bent to the point where we are now ...  if there are
no clear rules, bending the rules until someone screams seems to be
the best if not the only way to figure out how things are supposed
to work.

> stable rules as fairly strict. And in particular, I really don't think
> people should see "post-rc4" to be any different from "stable".
> 
My personal rule so far has been more pragmatic - if it is going to bother
me as maintainer, I want it fixed in -stable. Otherwise I'll be bogged down
forever having to tell people to use a later kernel to get a bug fixed.
I don't really have enough time to do that, often people don't even have
that option.

Guenter
--
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