From: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
[ Upstream commit 18f1becb6948cd411fd01968a0a54af63732e73c ]
Move code to parse lun from req's lun_buf to helper, so tmf code
can use it in the next patch.
Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jason Wang <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/vhost/scsi.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/scsi.c b/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
index 5d8850f5aef16..ed7dc6b998f65 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
@@ -898,6 +898,11 @@ vhost_scsi_get_req(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, struct vhost_scsi_ctx *vc,
return ret;
}
+static u16 vhost_buf_to_lun(u8 *lun_buf)
+{
+ return ((lun_buf[2] << 8) | lun_buf[3]) & 0x3FFF;
+}
+
static void
vhost_scsi_handle_vq(struct vhost_scsi *vs, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
{
@@ -1036,12 +1041,12 @@ vhost_scsi_handle_vq(struct vhost_scsi *vs, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
tag = vhost64_to_cpu(vq, v_req_pi.tag);
task_attr = v_req_pi.task_attr;
cdb = &v_req_pi.cdb[0];
- lun = ((v_req_pi.lun[2] << 8) | v_req_pi.lun[3]) & 0x3FFF;
+ lun = vhost_buf_to_lun(v_req_pi.lun);
} else {
tag = vhost64_to_cpu(vq, v_req.tag);
task_attr = v_req.task_attr;
cdb = &v_req.cdb[0];
- lun = ((v_req.lun[2] << 8) | v_req.lun[3]) & 0x3FFF;
+ lun = vhost_buf_to_lun(v_req.lun);
}
/*
* Check that the received CDB size does not exceeded our
--
2.27.0
On 25/11/20 16:35, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
>
> [ Upstream commit 18f1becb6948cd411fd01968a0a54af63732e73c ]
>
> Move code to parse lun from req's lun_buf to helper, so tmf code
> can use it in the next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Jason Wang <[email protected]>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
This doesn't seem like stable material, does it?
Paolo
> ---
> drivers/vhost/scsi.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/scsi.c b/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
> index 5d8850f5aef16..ed7dc6b998f65 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/scsi.c
> @@ -898,6 +898,11 @@ vhost_scsi_get_req(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, struct vhost_scsi_ctx *vc,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static u16 vhost_buf_to_lun(u8 *lun_buf)
> +{
> + return ((lun_buf[2] << 8) | lun_buf[3]) & 0x3FFF;
> +}
> +
> static void
> vhost_scsi_handle_vq(struct vhost_scsi *vs, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> {
> @@ -1036,12 +1041,12 @@ vhost_scsi_handle_vq(struct vhost_scsi *vs, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> tag = vhost64_to_cpu(vq, v_req_pi.tag);
> task_attr = v_req_pi.task_attr;
> cdb = &v_req_pi.cdb[0];
> - lun = ((v_req_pi.lun[2] << 8) | v_req_pi.lun[3]) & 0x3FFF;
> + lun = vhost_buf_to_lun(v_req_pi.lun);
> } else {
> tag = vhost64_to_cpu(vq, v_req.tag);
> task_attr = v_req.task_attr;
> cdb = &v_req.cdb[0];
> - lun = ((v_req.lun[2] << 8) | v_req.lun[3]) & 0x3FFF;
> + lun = vhost_buf_to_lun(v_req.lun);
> }
> /*
> * Check that the received CDB size does not exceeded our
>
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:48:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 25/11/20 16:35, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>From: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
>>
>>[ Upstream commit 18f1becb6948cd411fd01968a0a54af63732e73c ]
>>
>>Move code to parse lun from req's lun_buf to helper, so tmf code
>>can use it in the next patch.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
>>Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
>>Acked-by: Jason Wang <[email protected]>
>>Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
>>Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]>
>>Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
>
>This doesn't seem like stable material, does it?
It went in as a dependency for efd838fec17b ("vhost scsi: Add support
for LUN resets."), which is the next patch.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
On 25/11/20 19:01, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:48:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 25/11/20 16:35, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> From: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit 18f1becb6948cd411fd01968a0a54af63732e73c ]
>>>
>>> Move code to parse lun from req's lun_buf to helper, so tmf code
>>> can use it in the next patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
>>> Acked-by: Jason Wang <[email protected]>
>>> Link:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
>>> Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
>>
>> This doesn't seem like stable material, does it?
>
> It went in as a dependency for efd838fec17b ("vhost scsi: Add support
> for LUN resets."), which is the next patch.
Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either... Patch 3/5 in the
series might be (vhost scsi: fix cmd completion race), so I can
understand including 1/5 and 2/5 just in case, but not the rest. Does
the bot not understand diffstats?
Paolo
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 07:08:54PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 25/11/20 19:01, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:48:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>On 25/11/20 16:35, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>>From: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>[ Upstream commit 18f1becb6948cd411fd01968a0a54af63732e73c ]
>>>>
>>>>Move code to parse lun from req's lun_buf to helper, so tmf code
>>>>can use it in the next patch.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <[email protected]>
>>>>Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
>>>>Acked-by: Jason Wang <[email protected]>
>>>>Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
>>>>Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>This doesn't seem like stable material, does it?
>>
>>It went in as a dependency for efd838fec17b ("vhost scsi: Add support
>>for LUN resets."), which is the next patch.
>
>Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either... Patch 3/5 in
Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
>the series might be (vhost scsi: fix cmd completion race), so I can
>understand including 1/5 and 2/5 just in case, but not the rest. Does
>the bot not understand diffstats?
Not on their own, no. What's wrong with the diffstats?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either... Patch 3/5 in
>
> Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
Dunno, 120 lines of new code? Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't see
why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it without
any kind of testing. Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking things are
low, but stuff like locking rules might have changed since older
releases like 5.4 or 4.19. The autoselection bot does not know that, it
basically crosses fingers that these larger-scale changes cause the
patches not to apply or compile anymore.
Maybe it's just me, but the whole "autoselect stable patches" and
release them is very suspicious. You are basically crossing fingers and
are ready to release any kind of untested crap, because you do not trust
maintainers of marking stable patches right. Only then, when a backport
is broken, it's maintainers who get the blame and have to fix it.
Personally I don't care because I have asked you to opt KVM out of
autoselection, but this is the opposite of what Greg brags about when he
touts the virtues of the upstream stable process over vendor kernels.
Paolo
>> the series might be (vhost scsi: fix cmd completion race), so I can
>> understand including 1/5 and 2/5 just in case, but not the rest. Does
>> the bot not understand diffstats?
>
> Not on their own, no. What's wrong with the diffstats?
>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either...? Patch 3/5
>>>in
>>
>>Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
>
>Dunno, 120 lines of new code? Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't
>see why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it
>without any kind of testing. Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking
Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
>things are low, but stuff like locking rules might have changed since
>older releases like 5.4 or 4.19. The autoselection bot does not know
>that, it basically crosses fingers that these larger-scale changes
>cause the patches not to apply or compile anymore.
Plus all the testing we have for the stable trees, yes. It goes beyond
just compiling at this point.
Your very own co-workers (https://cki-project.org/) are pushing hard on
this effort around stable kernel testing, and statements like these
aren't helping anyone.
If on the other hand, you'd like to see specific KVM/virtio/etc tests as
part of the stable release process, we should all work together to make
sure they're included in the current test suite.
>Maybe it's just me, but the whole "autoselect stable patches" and
>release them is very suspicious. You are basically crossing fingers
Historically autoselected patches were later fixed/reverted at a lower
ratio than patches tagged with a stable tag. I *think* that it's because
they get a longer review cycle than some of the stable tagged patches.
>and are ready to release any kind of untested crap, because you do not
>trust maintainers of marking stable patches right. Only then, when a
It's not that I don't trust - some folks forget, or not realize that
something should go in stable. We're all humans. This is to complement
the work done by maintainers, not replace it.
>backport is broken, it's maintainers who get the blame and have to fix
>it.
What blame? Who's blaming who?
>Personally I don't care because I have asked you to opt KVM out of
>autoselection, but this is the opposite of what Greg brags about when
>he touts the virtues of the upstream stable process over vendor
>kernels.
What, that we try and include all fixes rather than the ones I'm paid to
pick up?
If you have a vendor you pay $$$ to, then yes - you're probably better
off with a vendor kernel. This is actually in line (I think) with Greg's
views on this
(http://kroah.com/log/blog/2018/08/24/what-stable-kernel-should-i-use/).
--
Thanks,
Sasha
On 29/11/20 22:06, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either... Patch 3/5 in
>>>
>>> Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
>>
>> Dunno, 120 lines of new code? Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't
>> see why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it
>> without any kind of testing. Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking
>
> Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
> testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
> just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:
Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into
the "-stable" tree:
- It must be obviously correct and tested.
- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> Plus all the testing we have for the stable trees, yes. It goes beyond
> just compiling at this point.
>
> Your very own co-workers (https://cki-project.org/) are pushing hard on
> this effort around stable kernel testing, and statements like these
> aren't helping anyone.
I am not aware of any public CI being done _at all_ done on vhost-scsi,
by CKI or everyone else. So autoselection should be done only on
subsystems that have very high coverage in CI.
Paolo
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:33:46AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/11/20 22:06, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > > Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either...? Patch 3/5 in
> > > >
> > > > Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
> > >
> > > Dunno, 120 lines of new code?? Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't
> > > see why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it
> > > without any kind of testing.? Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking
> >
> > Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
> > testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
> > just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
>
> Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:
>
> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
> "-stable" tree:
>
> - It must be obviously correct and tested.
> - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
We do obviously take patches that are bigger than 100 lines, as there
are always exceptions to the rules here. Look at all of the
spectre/meltdown patches as one such example. Should we refuse a patch
just because it fixes a real issue yet is 101 lines long?
thanks,
greg k-h
On 30/11/20 14:28, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
>>> testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
>>> just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
>> Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:
>>
>> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
>> "-stable" tree:
>>
>> - It must be obviously correct and tested.
>> - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> We do obviously take patches that are bigger than 100 lines, as there
> are always exceptions to the rules here. Look at all of the
> spectre/meltdown patches as one such example. Should we refuse a patch
> just because it fixes a real issue yet is 101 lines long?
Every patch should be "fixing a real issue"---even a new feature. But
the larger the patch, the more the submitters and maintainers should be
trusted rather than a bot. The line between feature and bugfix
_sometimes_ is blurry, I would say that in this case it's not, and it
makes me question how the bot decided that this patch would be
acceptable for stable (which AFAIK is not something that can be answered).
Paolo
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:52:11PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 30/11/20 14:28, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
> > > > testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
> > > > just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
> > > Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:
> > >
> > > Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
> > > "-stable" tree:
> > >
> > > - It must be obviously correct and tested.
> > > - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> > We do obviously take patches that are bigger than 100 lines, as there
> > are always exceptions to the rules here. Look at all of the
> > spectre/meltdown patches as one such example. Should we refuse a patch
> > just because it fixes a real issue yet is 101 lines long?
>
> Every patch should be "fixing a real issue"---even a new feature. But the
> larger the patch, the more the submitters and maintainers should be trusted
> rather than a bot. The line between feature and bugfix _sometimes_ is
> blurry, I would say that in this case it's not, and it makes me question how
> the bot decided that this patch would be acceptable for stable (which AFAIK
> is not something that can be answered).
I thought that earlier Sasha said that this patch was needed as a
prerequisite patch for a later fix, right? If not, sorry, I've lost the
train of thought in this thread...
thanks,
greg k-h
On 30/11/20 14:57, Greg KH wrote:
>> Every patch should be "fixing a real issue"---even a new feature. But the
>> larger the patch, the more the submitters and maintainers should be trusted
>> rather than a bot. The line between feature and bugfix_sometimes_ is
>> blurry, I would say that in this case it's not, and it makes me question how
>> the bot decided that this patch would be acceptable for stable (which AFAIK
>> is not something that can be answered).
> I thought that earlier Sasha said that this patch was needed as a
> prerequisite patch for a later fix, right? If not, sorry, I've lost the
> train of thought in this thread...
Yeah---sorry I am replying to 22/33 but referring to 23/33, which is the
one that in my opinion should not be blindly accepted for stable kernels
without the agreement of the submitter or maintainer.
Paolo
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:00:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 30/11/20 14:57, Greg KH wrote:
>>>Every patch should be "fixing a real issue"---even a new feature. But the
>>>larger the patch, the more the submitters and maintainers should be trusted
>>>rather than a bot. The line between feature and bugfix_sometimes_ is
>>>blurry, I would say that in this case it's not, and it makes me question how
>>>the bot decided that this patch would be acceptable for stable (which AFAIK
>>>is not something that can be answered).
>>I thought that earlier Sasha said that this patch was needed as a
>>prerequisite patch for a later fix, right? If not, sorry, I've lost the
>>train of thought in this thread...
>
>Yeah---sorry I am replying to 22/33 but referring to 23/33, which is
>the one that in my opinion should not be blindly accepted for stable
>kernels without the agreement of the submitter or maintainer.
But it's not "blindly", right? I've sent this review mail over a week
ago, and if it goes into the queue there will be at least two more
emails going out to the author/maintainers.
During all this time it gets tested by various entities who do things
that go beyond simple boot testing.
I'd argue that the backports we push in the stable tree sometimes get
tested and reviewed better than the commits that land upstream.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:33:46AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 29/11/20 22:06, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>Plus all the testing we have for the stable trees, yes. It goes beyond
>>just compiling at this point.
>>
>>Your very own co-workers (https://cki-project.org/) are pushing hard on
>>this effort around stable kernel testing, and statements like these
>>aren't helping anyone.
>
>I am not aware of any public CI being done _at all_ done on
>vhost-scsi, by CKI or everyone else. So autoselection should be done
>only on subsystems that have very high coverage in CI.
Where can I find a testsuite for virtio/vhost? I see one for KVM, but
where is the one that the maintainers of virtio/vhost run on patches
that come in?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
On 11/30/20 11:52 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 30/11/20 18:38, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> I am not aware of any public CI being done _at all_ done on vhost-scsi, by CKI or everyone else. So autoselection should be done only on subsystems that have very high coverage in CI.
>>
>> Where can I find a testsuite for virtio/vhost? I see one for KVM, but
>> where is the one that the maintainers of virtio/vhost run on patches
>> that come in?
>
> I don't know of any, especially for vhost-scsi. MikeC?
>
Sorry for the late reply on the thread. I was out of the office.
I have never seen a public/open-source vhost-scsi testsuite.
For patch 23 (the one that adds the lun reset support which is built on
patch 22), we can't add it to stable right now if you wanted to, because
it has a bug in it. Michael T, sent the fix:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git/commit/?h=linux-next&id=b4fffc177fad3c99ee049611a508ca9561bb6871
to Linus today.
On 30/11/20 20:44, Mike Christie wrote:
> I have never seen a public/open-source vhost-scsi testsuite.
>
> For patch 23 (the one that adds the lun reset support which is built on
> patch 22), we can't add it to stable right now if you wanted to, because
> it has a bug in it. Michael T, sent the fix:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git/commit/?h=linux-next&id=b4fffc177fad3c99ee049611a508ca9561bb6871
>
> to Linus today.
Ok, so at least it was only a close call and anyway not for something
that most people would be running on their machines. But it still seems
to me that the state of CI in Linux is abysmal compared to what is
needed to arbitrarily(*) pick up patches and commit them to "stable" trees.
Paolo
(*) A ML bot is an arbitrary choice as far as we are concerned since we
cannot know how it makes a decision.
On 30/11/20 18:38, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I am not aware of any public CI being done _at all_ done on
>> vhost-scsi, by CKI or everyone else. So autoselection should be done
>> only on subsystems that have very high coverage in CI.
>
> Where can I find a testsuite for virtio/vhost? I see one for KVM, but
> where is the one that the maintainers of virtio/vhost run on patches
> that come in?
I don't know of any, especially for vhost-scsi. MikeC?
Paolo
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:29:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 30/11/20 20:44, Mike Christie wrote:
>>I have never seen a public/open-source vhost-scsi testsuite.
>>
>>For patch 23 (the one that adds the lun reset support which is built on
>>patch 22), we can't add it to stable right now if you wanted to, because
>>it has a bug in it. Michael T, sent the fix:
>>
>>https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git/commit/?h=linux-next&id=b4fffc177fad3c99ee049611a508ca9561bb6871
>>
>>to Linus today.
>
>Ok, so at least it was only a close call and anyway not for something
>that most people would be running on their machines. But it still
>seems to me that the state of CI in Linux is abysmal compared to what
>is needed to arbitrarily(*) pick up patches and commit them to
>"stable" trees.
>
>Paolo
>
>(*) A ML bot is an arbitrary choice as far as we are concerned since
>we cannot know how it makes a decision.
The choice of patches is "arbitrary", but the decision is human. The
patches are reviewed coming out of the AI, sent to public mailing
list(s) for review, followed by 2 reminders asking for reviews.
The process for AUTOSEL patches generally takes longer than most patches
do for upstream.
It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
> dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
> so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable". That
(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and
end. I don't see the need to second guess them.
Paolo
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>>It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
>>dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
>>so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
>
>The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable". That
They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything,
some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their
tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long.
>(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and
>end. I don't see the need to second guess them.
This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second
guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are
obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting
issues to them?
Are you saying that you have always gotten stable tags right? never
missed a stable tag where one should go?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 10:49 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >
> > > It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
> > > dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
> > > so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
> >
> > The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable". That
>
> They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything,
> some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their
> tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long.
>
> > (plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and
> > end. I don't see the need to second guess them.
>
> This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second
> guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are
> obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting
> issues to them?
>
> Are you saying that you have always gotten stable tags right? never
> missed a stable tag where one should go?
I think this simply adds to the burden of being a maintainer
without all that much value.
I think the primary value here would be getting people to upgrade to
current versions rather than backporting to nominally stable and
relatively actively changed old versions.
This is very much related to this thread about trivial patches
and maintainer burdening:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1c7d7fde126bc0acf825766de64bf2f9b888f216.camel@HansenPartnership.com/
On 04/12/20 16:49, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>
>>> It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
>>> dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
>>> so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
>>
>> The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable". That
>
> They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything,
> some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their
> tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long.
That means some subsystems will be worse as far as stable release
support goes. That's not a problem:
- some subsystems have people paid to do backports to LTS releases when
patches don't apply; others don't, if the patch doesn't apply the bug is
simply not fixed in LTS releases
- some subsystems are worse than others even in "normal" releases :)
>> (plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and
>> end. I don't see the need to second guess them.
>
> This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second
> guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are
> obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting
> issues to them?
No, it's not the same. CI helps finding bugs before you have to waste
time spending bisecting regressions across thousands of commits. The
lack of stable tags _can_ certainly be a problem, but it solves itself
sooner or later when people upgrade their kernel.
> Are you saying that you have always gotten stable tags right? never
> missed a stable tag where one should go?
Of course I did, just like I have introduced bugs. But at least I try
to do my best both at adding stable tags and at not introducing bugs.
Paolo
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:08:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>On 04/12/20 16:49, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
>>>>dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
>>>>so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
>>>
>>>The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable".?
>>>That
>>
>>They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything,
>>some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their
>>tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long.
>
>That means some subsystems will be worse as far as stable release
>support goes. That's not a problem:
>
>- some subsystems have people paid to do backports to LTS releases
>when patches don't apply; others don't, if the patch doesn't apply the
>bug is simply not fixed in LTS releases
Why not? A warning mail is originated and folks fix those up. I fixed a
whole bunch of these myself for subsystems I'm not "paid" to do so.
>- some subsystems are worse than others even in "normal" releases :)
Agree with that.
>>>(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start
>>>and end.? I don't see the need to second guess them.
>>
>>This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second
>>guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are
>>obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting
>>issues to them?
>
>No, it's not the same. CI helps finding bugs before you have to waste
>time spending bisecting regressions across thousands of commits. The
>lack of stable tags _can_ certainly be a problem, but it solves itself
>sooner or later when people upgrade their kernel.
If just waiting with fixing issues is ok until a user might "eventually"
upgrade is acceptable then why bother with a stable tree to begin with?
--
Thanks,
Sasha