[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180416170010.GA11034@amd>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:00:10 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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
Hi!
> >> Let me ask my wife (who is happy using Linux as a regular desktop user)
> >> how comfortable she would be with triaging kernel bugs...
> >
> >That's really up to the distribution, not the main kernel stable. Does
> >she download and compile the kernels herself? Does she use LEDs?
> >
> >The point is, stable is to keep what was working continued working.
> >If we don't care about introducing a regression, and just want to keep
> >regressions the same as mainline, why not just go to mainline? That way
> >you can also get the new features? Mainline already has the mantra to
> >not break user space. When I work on new features, I sometimes stumble
> >on bugs with the current features. And some of those fixes require a
> >rewrite. It was "good enough" before, but every so often could cause a
> >bug that the new feature would trigger more often. Do we back port that
> >rewrite? Do we backport fixes to old code that are more likely to be
> >triggered by new features?
> >
> >Ideally, we should be working on getting to no regressions to stable.
>
> This is exactly what we're doing.
>
> If a fix for a bug in -stable introduces a different regression,
> should we take it or not?
If a fix for bug introduces regression, would you call it "obviously
correct"?
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)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists