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 06:42:30PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>On Mon 2018-04-16 16:39:20, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:28:50PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Is there a reason not to take LED fixes if they fix a bug and don't
>> >> >> cause a regression? Sure, we can draw some arbitrary line, maybe
>> >> >> designate some subsystems that are more "important" than others, but
>> >> >> what's the point?
>> >> >
>> >> >There's a tradeoff.
>> >> >
>> >> >You want to fix serious bugs in stable, and you really don't want
>> >> >regressions in stable. And ... stable not having 1000s of patches
>> >> >would be nice, too.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the
>> >> regression rate: how many patches broke something?
>> >>
>> >> Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were
>> >> seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing?
>> >
>> >Regression rate should not be the only criteria.
>> >
>> >More patches mean bigger chance customer's patches will have a
>> >conflict with something in -stable, for example.
>>
>> Out of tree patches can't be a consideration here. There are no
>> guarantees for out of tree code, ever.
>
>Out of tree code is not consideration for mainline, agreed. Stable
>should be different.

This is a discussion we could have with in right forum, but FYI stable
doesn't even guarantee KABI compatibility between minor versions at this
point.