[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180503094724.GD32180@amd>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 11:47:24 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
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 21:18:47, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:43:28PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >> So I think that Linus's claim that users come first applies here as
> >> well. If there's a user that cares about a particular feature being
> >> broken, then we go ahead and fix his bug rather then ignoring him.
> >
> >So one extreme is fixing -stable *iff* users actually do report an issue.
> >
> >The other extreme is backporting everything that potentially looks like a
> >potential fix of "something" (according to some arbitrary metric),
> >pro-actively.
> >
> >The former voilates the "users first" rule, the latter has a very, very
> >high risk of regressions.
> >
> >So this whole debate is about finding a compromise.
> >
> >My gut feeling always was that the statement in
> >
> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >
> >is very reasonable, but making the process way more "aggresive" when
> >backporting patches is breaking much of its original spirit for me.
>
> I agree that as an enterprise distro taking everything from -stable
> isn't the best idea. Ideally you'd want to be close to the first
Original purpose of -stable was "to be common base of enterprise
distros" and our documentation still says it is.
> I think that we can agree that it's impossible to expect every single
> Linux user to go on LKML and complain about a bug he encountered, so the
> rule quickly becomes "It must fix a real bug that can bother
> people".
I think you are playing dangerous word games.
> My "aggressiveness" comes from the whole "bother" part: it doesn't have
> to be critical, it doesn't have to cause data corruption, it doesn't
> have to be a security issue. It's enough that the bug actually affects a
> user in a way he didn't expect it to (if a user doesn't have
> expectations, it would fall under the "This could be a problem..."
> exception.
And it seems documentation says you should be less aggressive and
world tells you they expect to be less aggressive. So maybe that's
what you should do?
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