linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested

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]

Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:30:14 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stable tree <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is
 requested

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:24:00PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 05-12-16 14:15:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > That's not a problem in that I know I like to see them to give me a
> > > > "heads up" that something is coming down the pipeline soon.
> > > 
> > > Are you really tracking all those discussion to catch resulting patches
> > > in the Linus' tree? I simply fail to see a point having N versions of
> > > the patch on the stable mailing list before it gets picked up from the
> > > _Linus'_ anyayw.
> > > 
> > > > I don't think anyone has ever complained of this before, do you?
> > > 
> > > This is the reason I have stopped following the stable mailing list.
> > > The noise level is just too high.
> > 
> > I personally have mixed opinion on this. I agree that there's too much
> > "noise" on the list, but at the same time I would probably be even more
> > clueless about patches I receive if I didn't have this noise.
> 
> Is this because patches that you are receiving do not have the full
> context?

No, not at all, it's because when you're only working on old kernels,
you tend to cultivate a wide gap with modern features. And actually seeing
some activity related to some new features prepares you to deal with them,
sometimes simply by testing them on spare time. In my case t's not
exclusively a matter of applying patches, it's also about using the
kernels I emit (ie eating my own food). Normally lkml is made for this
but it's far too much verbose, and stable provides a resonable excerpt
of things I'm supposed to visit soon.

Cheers,
Willy