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;
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
CC:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.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>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes
Thread-Topic: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes
Thread-Index: AQHTz5h7IvK2v80d0k6VVqDoPwJEM6P4GK8AgAnYKwCAAX5DAIAAHfKAgAADdYCAAAWWgIAABF0AgAAD94CAAAIigIAAA1WAgAAA7IA=
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:43:13 +0000
Message-ID: <20180416164310.GF2341@sasha-vm>
References: <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> <20180416122019.1c175925@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180416162757.GB2341@sasha-vm> <20180416163952.GA8740@amd>
In-Reply-To: <20180416163952.GA8740@amd>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E911F47528F91A4AB1C7E5F9C2D9F832@namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c84a0306-59ad-49f8-2ee5-08d5a3b92563
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Apr 2018 16:43:13.2456
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR2101MB1077
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:39:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>On Mon 2018-04-16 16:28:00, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:06:08 +0200
>> >Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That means you want to ignore not-so-serious bugs, because benefit of
>> >> fixing them is lower than risk of the regressions. I believe bugs tha=
t
>> >> do not bother anyone should _not_ be fixed in stable.
>> >>
>> >> That was case of the LED patch. Yes, the commit fixed bug, but it
>> >> introduced regressions that were fixed by subsequent patches.
>> >
>> >I agree. I would disagree that the patch this thread is on should go to
>> >stable. What's the point of stable if it introduces regressions by
>> >backporting bug fixes for non major bugs.
>>
>> One such reason is that users will then hit the regression when they
>> upgrade to the next -stable version anyways.
>
>Well, yes, testing is required when moving from 4.14 to 4.15. But
>testing should not be required when moving from 4.14.5 to 4.14.6.

You always have to test, even without the AUTOSEL stuff. The rejection
rate was 2% even before AUTOSEL, so there was always a chance of
regression when upgrading minor stable versions.

>> >Every fix I make I consider labeling it for stable. The ones I don't, I
>> >feel the bug fix is not worth the risk of added regressions.
>> >
>> >I worry that people will get lazy and stop marking commits for stable
>> >(or even thinking about it) because they know that there's a bot that
>> >will pull it for them. That thought crossed my mind. Why do I want to
>> >label anything stable if a bot will probably catch it. Then I could
>> >just wait till the bot posts it before I even think about stable.
>>
>> People are already "lazy". You are actually an exception for marking you=
r
>> commits.
>>
>> Yes, folks will chime in with "sure, I mark my patches too!", but if you
>> look at the entire committer pool in the kernel you'll see that most
>> don't bother with this to begin with.
>
>So you take everything and put it into stable? I don't think that's a
>solution.

I don't think I ever said that I want to put *everything*

>If you are worried about people not putting enough "Stable: " tags in
>their commits, perhaps you can write them emails "hey, I think this
>should go to stable, do you agree"? You should get people marking
>their commits themselves pretty quickly...

Greg has been doing this for years, ask him how that worked out for him.=