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

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Mon Apr 16 2018 - 12:10:25 EST

On Mon 2018-04-16 16:02:03, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:36:29AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:18:09 -0700
> >Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I wonder if the "AUTOSEL" patches should at least have an "ack-by" from
> >> > someone before they are pulled in. Otherwise there may be some subtle
> >> > issues that can find their way into stable releases.
> >>
> >> I don't know about anybody else, but I get so many of the patch-bot
> >> patches for stable etc that I will *not* reply to normal cases. Only
> >> if there's some issue with a patch will I reply.
> >>
> >> I probably do get more than most, but still - requiring active
> >> participation for the steady flow of normal stable patches is almost
> >> pointless.
> >>
> >> Just look at the subject line of this thread. The numbers are so big
> >> that you almost need exponential notation for them.
> >>
> >
> >I'm worried about just backporting patches that nobody actually looked
> >at. Is someone going through and vetting that these should definitely
> >be added to stable. I would like to have some trusted human (doesn't
> >even need to be the author or maintainer of the patch) to look at all
> >the patches before they are applied.
> I do go through every single commit sent this way and review it.
> Sometimes things slip by, but it's not a fully automatic process.
> Let's look at this patch as a concrete example: the only reason,
> according to the stable rules, that it shouldn't go in -stable is that
> it's longer than 100 lines.
> Otherwise, it fixes a bug, it doesn't introduce any new features, it's
> upstream, and so on. It had some fixes that went upstream as well?
> Great, let's grab those as well.
> >I would say anything more than a trivial patch would require author or
> >sub maintainer ack. Look at this patch, I don't think it should go to
> >stable, even though it does fix issues. But the fix is for systems
> >already having issues, and this keeps printk from making things worse.
> >The fix has side effects that other commits have addressed, and if this
> >patch gets backported, those other ones must too.
> Sure, let's get those patches in as well.
> One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility":
> we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable.
> If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way.

Maybe Greg should be Cced on this conversation?

Anyway, I don't think "bug compatibility" is a good goal.
(cesky, pictures)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature