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]

Message-ID: <20161205141451.GK30758@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:14:51 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stable tree <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is
 requested

On Mon 05-12-16 14:58:24, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 05-12-16 13:52:36, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:21:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Currently if a patch should aim a stable tree backport one should add
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # $version
> > > > 
> > > > to the s-o-b block. This has two major disadvantages a) it spams the
> > > > stable mailing list with patches which are just discussed and not merged
> > > > yet
> > > 
> > > 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 do scan them, sometimes I even find problems with them (like a zram
> "fix" that went by this weekend.)  So yes, it is always good to have
> more reviewers on patches, don't you think?

Yes I do agree that more review is better. But then the stable mailing
list is a complete failure in that resopect - at least for me. Why?
Simply because it doesn't contain discussion for the stable inclusion
but rather something that eventually might happen to become stable
material. This what I call noise and the reason why I've stopped
following the stable ML.

> > > 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.
> 
> What "noise"?  It's all patches that are being addressed to the stable
> kernels, how is that off-topic?  What do you expect to be posted to this
> list?

Patches which are final and target the stable tree. I do not have to see
N versions of patchesets which evolve in the time just to see that
something completely different has been merged to the Linus tree. 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs