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

[Sasha Levin]

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:32:15AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> >- It must be obviously correct and tested.
>> >
>> >If it introduces new bug, it is not correct, and certainly not
>> >obviously correct.
>>
>> As you might have noticed, we don't strictly follow the rules.
>
>Yes, I noticed. And what I'm saying is that perhaps you should follow
>the rules more strictly.

Again, this was stated many times by Greg and others, the rules are not
there to be strictly followed.

>> Take a look at the whole PTI story as an example. It's way more than 100
>> lines, it's not obviously corrent, it fixed more than 1 thing, and so
>> on, and yet it went in -stable!
>>
>> Would you argue we shouldn't have backported PTI to -stable?
>
>Actually, I was surprised with PTI going to stable. That was clearly
>against the rules. Maybe the security bug was ugly enough to warrant
>that.
>
>But please don't use it as an argument for applying any random
>patches...

How about this: if a -stable maintainer has concerns with how I follow
the -stable rules, he's more than welcome to reject my patches. Sounds
like a plan?