[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200414120347.6b898e66@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:03:47 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 09/26] net/mlx5e: Init ethtool steering for
representors
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 20:37:18 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:49:20PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> > On 14/04/2020 16:16, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Are you suggesting that a commit without a fixes tag is never a fix?
> > Because fixes are much more likely than non-fixes to have a Fixes tag,
> > the absence of a fixes tag is Bayesian evidence that a commit is not
> > a fix. It's of course not incontrovertible evidence, since (as you
> > note) some fixes do not have a Fixes tag, but it does increase the
> > amount of countervailing evidence needed to conclude a commit is a fix.
> > In this case it looks as if the only such evidence was that the commit
> > message included the phrase "NULL pointer dereference".
> >
> > > Fixes can (and should) come in during a merge window as well. They are
> > > not put on hold until the -rc releases.
> > In networking-land, fixes generally go through David's 'net' tree, rather
> > than 'net-next'; the only times a fix goes to net-next are when
> > a) the code it's fixing is only in net-next; i.e. it's a fix to a previous
> > patch from the same merge window. In this case the fix should not be
> > backported, since the code it's fixing will not appear in stable kernels.
> > b) the code has changed enough between net and net-next that different
> > fixes are appropriate for the two trees. In this case, only the fix that
> > went to 'net' should be backported (since it's the one that's appropriate
> > for net, it's probably more appropriate for stable trees too); the fix
> > that went to 'net-next' should not.
> > Or's original phrasing was that this patch "was pushed to net-next", which
> > is not quite exactly the same thing as -next vs. -rc (though it's similar
> > because of David's system of closing net-next for the duration of the
> > merge window). And this, again, is quite strong Bayesian evidence that
> > the patch should not be selected for stable.
> >
> > To be honest, that this needs to be explained to you does not inspire
> > confidence in the quality of your autoselection process...
>
> It is a little bit harsh to say that.
>
> The autoselection process works good enough for everything outside
> of netdev community. The amount of bugs in those stable@ trees is
> not such high if you take into account the amount of fixes automatically
> brought in.
>
> I think that all Fedora users are indirectly use those stable@ trees.
+1
I think folks how mark things for stable explicitly and carefully have
an obvious bias because they only see the false positives of auto-sel
and never the benefits.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists