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

[Sasha Levin]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:39:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>On Mon 2018-04-16 16:28:00, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:06:08 +0200
>> >Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That means you want to ignore not-so-serious bugs, because benefit of
>> >> fixing them is lower than risk of the regressions. I believe bugs that
>> >> do not bother anyone should _not_ be fixed in stable.
>> >>
>> >> That was case of the LED patch. Yes, the commit fixed bug, but it
>> >> introduced regressions that were fixed by subsequent patches.
>> >
>> >I agree. I would disagree that the patch this thread is on should go to
>> >stable. What's the point of stable if it introduces regressions by
>> >backporting bug fixes for non major bugs.
>>
>> One such reason is that users will then hit the regression when they
>> upgrade to the next -stable version anyways.
>
>Well, yes, testing is required when moving from 4.14 to 4.15. But
>testing should not be required when moving from 4.14.5 to 4.14.6.

You always have to test, even without the AUTOSEL stuff. The rejection
rate was 2% even before AUTOSEL, so there was always a chance of
regression when upgrading minor stable versions.

>> >Every fix I make I consider labeling it for stable. The ones I don't, I
>> >feel the bug fix is not worth the risk of added regressions.
>> >
>> >I worry that people will get lazy and stop marking commits for stable
>> >(or even thinking about it) because they know that there's a bot that
>> >will pull it for them. That thought crossed my mind. Why do I want to
>> >label anything stable if a bot will probably catch it. Then I could
>> >just wait till the bot posts it before I even think about stable.
>>
>> People are already "lazy". You are actually an exception for marking your
>> commits.
>>
>> Yes, folks will chime in with "sure, I mark my patches too!", but if you
>> look at the entire committer pool in the kernel you'll see that most
>> don't bother with this to begin with.
>
>So you take everything and put it into stable? I don't think that's a
>solution.

I don't think I ever said that I want to put *everything*

>If you are worried about people not putting enough "Stable: " tags in
>their commits, perhaps you can write them emails "hey, I think this
>should go to stable, do you agree"? You should get people marking
>their commits themselves pretty quickly...

Greg has been doing this for years, ask him how that worked out for him.