Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:28:50 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes
Message-ID: <20180416162850.GA7553@amd>
References: <20180409001936.162706-1-alexander.levin@microsoft.com>
 <20180409001936.162706-15-alexander.levin@microsoft.com>
 <20180409082246.34hgp3ymkfqke3a4@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20180415144248.GP2341@sasha-vm>
 <20180416093058.6edca0bb@gandalf.local.home>
 <CA+55aFysLTQN8qRu=nuKttGBZzfQq=BpJBH+TMdgLJR7bgRGYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180416153031.GA5039@amd>
 <20180416155031.GX2341@sasha-vm>
 <20180416160608.GA7071@amd>
 <20180416161412.GZ2341@sasha-vm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180416161412.GZ2341@sasha-vm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> >> 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.
>=20
> I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the
> regression rate: how many patches broke something?
>=20
> 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.
									Pavel
--=20
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo=
g.html

--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlrUz0IACgkQMOfwapXb+vLVqgCgpovthKKD5cKnjDTF2vKcm28Z
S60AoKn4WoAGsERhssfgqOAyyKo9t5IB
=mh5U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ibTvN161/egqYuK8--