Received: by 2002:ac0:a582:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m2-v6csp1163401imm; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:03:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62t8weJNkJu1hAkuYU5/6upXc5QizAe/sWRL2pJl1XM5GzjBlztZge8HTfG3JDHLEg7bbZa X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:830b:: with SMTP id bd11-v6mr33046880plb.249.1539190987058; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:03:07 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1539190987; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=YQUJfepV8UoaGjygOlDE+VkFj7lo4NVRy6Tq6R9TGz+M9IWQgIflS9aTIb6eQmux7T xbo2Ev4r549QBF/DaVIz68w09+QbVD4p9CKt9Wih3hYNPKHq1XLxgBmKrc3L6HabS04y Z75/59zoAovH7GefUmbfGNJLQoDB1Ml6J7FqGBeP1C2UE0oknxM2L08nBGtCRNKHp4AG f278E05CMx0DZGCpzAd5O74YUhW8TCFTZU+d0ad7tZGZXCHL8S5LJTB1pp70cYXSKxKd meaTdjN3G3tju/py2vvDsSt1Cf/dKNeAC+XQcugCQiSFusxippWJ5gSRg5GGa2NQOYYm NeAA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=H/aeCcXuEULT5Am8kmZxCptHnF6jj04f7i5EAvuvlWo=; b=C57O6u0J25LsIS4TgJJJDsYzktdZa9u3jxL87ohljiN4Uz/rQnGj/iBRI26yvLSehb Z+YTGCfnJosDwSxxOATP1ymq6zaZYo8KnlvnBMuIjuPbOrFdSrTBV3flNFxf+60rgBpM znVxmH0lVMpjcsVJX499cTtQa4BzguCJNdSKa6VQuULcGlhucIql509GwWBjf3sizm5t NR7mKytRCtAW5FapChpDce7v0Tq9iKo1r4yPg+JcmyVsBur/FBOOd5x6EbAV2xDbJdDB WG9LM2G7k6O4MRxDBeBqqb8dtA3okiHmS0iyT1W1pb/Pqy7amwHsYZgpkoQAL3GoeYIl 9mYg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ivBw6fli; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k123-v6si23095012pfc.150.2018.10.10.10.02.51; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:03:07 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ivBw6fli; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726893AbeJKAZ0 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:25:26 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:39562 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726515AbeJKAZ0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:25:26 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id r9-v6so2804119pgv.6; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:02:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=H/aeCcXuEULT5Am8kmZxCptHnF6jj04f7i5EAvuvlWo=; b=ivBw6fliDhHu+9j8QxVCfVZHXDKhQnZJaVMraHptUtkieDIhxWlk6gnnnxggHcKBdd 6knUm/3GtGBysMJqeKcfSoZuAW2uTrPDCugX6HmoYLZsmkbcM3i1L0v/GbeRjNyLM9zO JSey5JDvJvBIZoOI3aLxktB/ed0yeAgh8LC7Y9KWgLUGFjZzgiz/BUfWqShFG5wliB63 LbLJl+EkZ+75wKM0nfpKb5rRnNW9zfh4tv4+4V48rxvgfMRqHdaBefCROILsLrX4b2Zo +f/L7Ij66ioPmutfVEswZDUoAM3EKIBacYm3fpKwnosU4X+pPKuRxL71C+bc7UipRoZm 8O7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=H/aeCcXuEULT5Am8kmZxCptHnF6jj04f7i5EAvuvlWo=; b=jN2U4wna52kfJVjuRLWaKW8PEHloAVK5ggGVndhFRkEQ55mmRPY9vXY79VopQJ09UO DihiYBC7wHOXYqdwwDp6xhatxEDe72DKsoxgi1ljHSwXTGvrN3c8jUq9VeDxIU7QLXNp Q/73/Y+yBk+OSHQFqYRN5E8VS+2qsWFrjRRt7Qt70bAQgkkhGrC36UWlX27MB4zpnR8c mwNj+3Acbb960cKQjmnLH1uaGub3z54FrdsCu259fMlMDm0lS1g3p9c7ynPRdLwmLRkf EC6j8xrdkF5G69ArYnQxybx0d4eqhJyhLfBwLTD6HkjLofWbtmjW2AywHszcx4aE/60v i0Qw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoiUuLIdI/WTPK4iMjljX2m+0bdavz+DR1z3Ni8GqUlVt3amkT74 NWRb0yUOdlu1zkLpvtgDvpQ= X-Received: by 2002:a63:31c8:: with SMTP id x191-v6mr29375266pgx.229.1539190943590; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dtor-ws ([2620:15c:202:201:3adc:b08c:7acc:b325]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 126-v6sm38432538pfd.16.2018.10.10.10.02.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:02:19 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Sasha Levin Cc: Michael Schmitz , "3.8+" , lkml , Andreas Schwab , alexander.levin@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.18 24/58] Input: atakbd - fix Atari CapsLock behaviour Message-ID: <20181010170219.GA47260@dtor-ws> References: <20181008152523.70705-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20181008152523.70705-24-sashal@kernel.org> <20181010142958.GF32006@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181010142958.GF32006@sasha-vm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:29:58AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:20:26PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > someone on debian-68k reported the bug, which (to me) indicates that the > > > code is not just used by me. > > > > > > Whether or not a functioning Capslock is essential to have? You be the > > > judge of that. If you are OK with applying the keymap patch, why not > > > this one? > > > > I have exactly the same concerns about the keymap patch. This all has > > not been working correctly for many many years (and it was not broken > > in a subtly way as far as I understand, but rather quite obvious). > > Thus I do not understand why this belongs to stable release. It is not > > a [recent] regression, nor secutiry bug, nor even enabling of new > > hardware, that is why I myself did not mark it as stable. > > > > I still maintain that we pick up for stable too many patches for no > > clear benefit. This is similar to the patch for Atmel controllers that > > was picked to stable and I asked why, as it is not clear how many > > users might be affected (or if the problem the patch was solving was > > purely theoretical, or only affecting hardware that is not in > > circulation yet). > > If you belive that a certain piece of code has no actual users, why do > you keep it in the upstream kernel to begin with? Because obviously there are users. Maybe 5 of them, maybe 10. They do not follow upstream very closely (otherwise these fixes would have appeared in mainline long time ago) but they still exist. And it is not hard to keep the driver in if there are not many changes. > > I don't think it makes sense to keep something upstream because it might > have users, but not backport fixes because there might not have any > users. > > You haven't seen evidence of anyone using/caring about it for a few > years? Great! Remove the code and if someone complains we can always > revert. This is how all those orphaned archs got removed a few releases > back. I'll even submit the patch if you'd like. > > It doesn't make sense to have "second class citizens" like how you > suggested. Sure does. Look, one of roles of a mantainer is basically a release manager. We need to decide what goes into new release, what goes into maintenance release, what stays until later milestone. Each release has different criteria. With maintenance release you want to minimize the disruption while alleviating most recent and critical/high visibility issues, IOW you want to get the most bang for your buck. And these particular fixes do not give you any bang, none at all. Same goes for patches that deal with error handling in probe() functions that your AUTOSEL scripts like to pick. Yes, they are fixing bugs. But show me actually users affected by them? You encounter these issues with probe when you do initial device bringup, but once device is stabilized probes are expected to succeed. There won't be duplicate sysfs attributes, memory will be allocated, and so on. Fixes to remove() might be worthwhile if it is a hot-pluggable bus, but otherwise - no. Yes, the box may OOPS if someone manually unbind device through sysfs, but the solution is no to patch stable kernels, but simply tell user "dont to that [yet]". When selecting a patch for stable ask yourself: "if I do not pick this for stable will a distribution be willing to patch this into their kernel on their own"? If the answer is "no" it should be pretty strong indicator whether a patch belongs to stable or not. Thanks. -- Dmitry