linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes

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: <20180416165451.GB9807@amd>
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:54:51 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes

On Mon 2018-04-16 16:45:16, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:42:30PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >On Mon 2018-04-16 16:39:20, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:28:50PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Is there a reason not to take LED fixes if they fix a bug and don't
> >> >> >> cause a regression? Sure, we can draw some arbitrary line, maybe
> >> >> >> designate some subsystems that are more "important" than others, but
> >> >> >> what's the point?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There's a tradeoff.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You want to fix serious bugs in stable, and you really don't want
> >> >> >regressions in stable. And ... stable not having 1000s of patches
> >> >> >would be nice, too.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the
> >> >> regression rate: how many patches broke something?
> >> >>
> >> >> Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were
> >> >> seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing?
> >> >
> >> >Regression rate should not be the only criteria.
> >> >
> >> >More patches mean bigger chance customer's patches will have a
> >> >conflict with something in -stable, for example.
> >>
> >> Out of tree patches can't be a consideration here. There are no
> >> guarantees for out of tree code, ever.
> >
> >Out of tree code is not consideration for mainline, agreed. Stable
> >should be different.
> 
> This is a discussion we could have with in right forum, but FYI stable
> doesn't even guarantee KABI compatibility between minor versions at this
> point.

Stable should be useful base for distributions. They carry out of tree
patches, and yes, you should try to make their lives easy.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)