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:   Thu, 3 May 2018 11:47:24 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        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: <20180503094724.GD32180@amd>
References: <20180416153031.GA5039@amd>
 <20180416155031.GX2341@sasha-vm>
 <20180416160608.GA7071@amd>
 <20180416161412.GZ2341@sasha-vm>
 <20180416170501.GB11034@amd>
 <20180416171607.GJ2341@sasha-vm>
 <alpine.LRH.2.00.1804162214260.26111@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
 <20180416203629.GO2341@sasha-vm>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1804162238500.28129@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
 <20180416211845.GP2341@sasha-vm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kvUQC+jR9YzypDnK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180416211845.GP2341@sasha-vm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--kvUQC+jR9YzypDnK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon 2018-04-16 21:18:47, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:43:28PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >> So I think that Linus's claim that users come first applies here as
> >> well. If there's a user that cares about a particular feature being
> >> broken, then we go ahead and fix his bug rather then ignoring him.
> >
> >So one extreme is fixing -stable *iff* users actually do report an issue.
> >
> >The other extreme is backporting everything that potentially looks like a
> >potential fix of "something" (according to some arbitrary metric),
> >pro-actively.
> >
> >The former voilates the "users first" rule, the latter has a very, very
> >high risk of regressions.
> >
> >So this whole debate is about finding a compromise.
> >
> >My gut feeling always was that the statement in
> >
> >	Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >
> >is very reasonable, but making the process way more "aggresive" when
> >backporting patches is breaking much of its original spirit for me.
>=20
> I agree that as an enterprise distro taking everything from -stable
> isn't the best idea. Ideally you'd want to be close to the first

Original purpose of -stable was "to be common base of enterprise
distros" and our documentation still says it is.

> I think that we can agree that it's impossible to expect every single
> Linux user to go on LKML and complain about a bug he encountered, so the
> rule quickly becomes "It must fix a real bug that can bother
> people".

I think you are playing dangerous word games.

> My "aggressiveness" comes from the whole "bother" part: it doesn't have
> to be critical, it doesn't have to cause data corruption, it doesn't
> have to be a security issue. It's enough that the bug actually affects a
> user in a way he didn't expect it to (if a user doesn't have
> expectations, it would fall under the "This could be a problem..."
> exception.

And it seems documentation says you should be less aggressive and
world tells you they expect to be less aggressive. So maybe that's
what you should do?
									Pavel
--=20
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo=
g.html

--kvUQC+jR9YzypDnK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlrq2qwACgkQMOfwapXb+vL+vwCghFP6TJ8cVqGOVUOEE9yh53Rb
wjgAniEpje+ePNmPY5rjf6cYo/adCPLu
=8oqh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--kvUQC+jR9YzypDnK--