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:     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
Thread-Topic: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes
Thread-Index: AQHTz5h7IvK2v80d0k6VVqDoPwJEM6P4GK8AgAnYKwCAAX5DAIAAHfKAgAADdYCAAAWWgIAABF0AgAACQQCAAAQXAIAAAuyAgAAA5gCAAADDAA==
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:45:16 +0000
Message-ID: <20180416164514.GG2341@sasha-vm>
References: <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>
 <20180416162850.GA7553@amd> <20180416163917.GE2341@sasha-vm>
 <20180416164230.GA9807@amd>
In-Reply-To: <20180416164230.GA9807@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: <F369767A41F444469453033E14F222E8@namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c2f89d01-c9a1-4d8a-2b30-08d5a3b96f29
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Apr 2018 16:45:17.0028
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR2101MB0869
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 06:42:30PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>On Mon 2018-04-16 16:39:20, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:28:50PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 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, b=
ut
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the
>> >> regression rate: how many patches broke something?
>> >>
>> >> Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we we=
re
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Out of tree patches can't be a consideration here. There are no
>> guarantees for out of tree code, ever.
>
>Out of tree code is not consideration for mainline, agreed. Stable
>should be different.

This is a discussion we could have with in right forum, but FYI stable
doesn't even guarantee KABI compatibility between minor versions at this
point.