[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180417134557.GT2341@sasha-vm>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:45:59 +0000
From: Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
CC: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"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 Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:24:54PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
>Back to the trend. Last week I got autosel mails even for
>patches that were still being discussed, had issues, and
>were far from upstream:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/DM5PR2101MB1032AB19B489D46B717B50D4FBBB0@DM5PR2101MB1032.namprd21.prod.outlook.com
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/DM5PR2101MB10327FA0A7E0D2C901E33B79FBBB0@DM5PR2101MB1032.namprd21.prod.outlook.com
>
>It might be a good idea if the mail asked to add Fixes: tag
>or stable mailing list. But the mail suggested to add the
>unfinished patch into stable branch directly (even before
>upstreaming?).
I obviously didn't suggest that this patch will go in -stable before
it's upstream.
I've started doing those because some folks can't be arsed to reply to a
review request for a patch that is months old. I found that if I send
these mails while the discussion is still going on I'd get a much better
response rate from people.
If you think any of these patches should go in stable there were two
ways about it:
- You end up adding the -stable tag yourself, and it would follow the
usual route where Greg picks it up.
- You reply to that mail, and the patch would wait in a list until my
script notices it made it upstream, at which point it would get
queued for stable.
>Now, there are only hand full of printk patches in each
>release, so it is still doable. I just do not understand
>how other maintainers, from much more busy subsystems,
>could cope with this trend.
>
>By other words. If you want to automatize patch nomination,
>you might need to automatize also patch review. Or you need
>to keep the patch rate low. This might mean to nominate
>only important and rather trivial fixes.
I also have an effort to help review the patches. See what I'm working
on for the xfs folks:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/29/1113
Where in addition to build tests I'd also run each commit, for each
stable kernel through a set of xfstests and provide them along with the
mail.
So yes, I'm aware that the volume of patches is huge, but there's not
much I can do about it because it's just a subset of the kernel's patch
volume and since the kernel gets more and more patches each release, the
volume of stable commits is bound to grow as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists