Re: Big load on lkml created by -stable patchbombs was Re: [PATCH 5.19 0000/1157] 5.19.2-rc1 review

[Bagas Sanjaya]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:56:14PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.19.2 release.
> > > > There are 1157 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > > let me know.
> > > 
> > > Hi Greg,
> > > 
> > > Perhaps its time that you just send a single email to LKML pointing where to
> > > find the stable releases. These patch bombs are bringing vger down to its
> > > knees, and causing delays in people's workflows. This doesn't just affect
> > > LKML, but all other vger mailing lists. Probably because LKML has the biggest
> > > subscriber base that patch bombs to it can slow everything else down.
> > > 
> > > I sent 3 patches to the linux-trace-devel list almost 4 hours ago, and they
> > > still haven't shown up. I was going to point people to it tonight but it's now
> > > going to have to wait till tomorrow.
> > 
> > Email is async, sometimes it takes longer than others to recieve
> > messages.
> 
> Well, email is pretty fast most of the month.
> 
> > My "patch bombs" get sent out slow to the mail servers, there is work to
> > fix up vger and move it over to the LF-managed infrastructure, perhaps
> > work with the vger admins to help that effort out?
> 
> I'm pretty used to -stable patches going to l-k, so I got used to
> current workflow. OTOH ... -stable _is_ quite significant fraction of
> total lkml traffic, and I see how people may hate that.
> 
> Is not it ultimately for vger admins to decide what kind of load they
> consider acceptable?
> 
> Would it make sense to somehow batch the messages, or perhaps to
> modify patchbombing scripts to send patches "slowly" so that -stable
> does not DoS other lkml users?
> 
> Actually, if the patch is same between multiple -stable releases
> (which is rather common case) sending it just once tagged with "this
> goes to 4.9, 4.14, 4.19 and 5.10" would both take less bandwidth and
> make review easier. (But I see it may not be that easy).
> 

Hi Pavel,

I have to breakdown In-Reply-To chain.

I can't see the message you sent above on lore, so I had to "lei up"
in order to get it. On lore, the patch series thread [1] displayed
is until [1001/1157], and rest of the thread (including yours) is skipped.
Actually, I can see your message from search results [2].

I guess why more than a thousand of patches must be reviewed for this
stable review cycle is because many of them (which have stable list CCed)
are errorneously submitted and merged for 6.0 merge window, not as
stabilization fixes for 5.19. But I also wonder if any of these patches
are not actually qualified for stable (new drivers?).

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20220815180439.416659447@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20220816115614.GB27428@xxxxxxxxxx/

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature