Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <d2a50ca6452a13c94e94e839577b5914e96bacbb.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid: cleanup formatting of megaraid
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Konrad Wilhelm Kleine <kkleine@redhat.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, kashyap.desai@broadcom.com,
        sumit.saxena@broadcom.com, shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com,
        jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com, scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Date:   Thu, 03 Mar 2022 21:40:45 -0800
In-Reply-To: <e7e99791-aade-55fd-ac75-71478699cbe0@acm.org>
References: <20220127151945.1244439-1-trix@redhat.com>
         <d26d4bd8-b5e1-f4d5-b563-9bc4dd384ff8@acm.org>
         <0adde369-3fd7-3608-594c-d199cce3c936@redhat.com>
         <e3ae392a16491b9ddeb1f0b2b74fdf05628b1996.camel@perches.com>
         <46441b86-1d19-5eb4-0013-db1c63a9b0a5@redhat.com>
         <8dd05afd-0bb9-c91b-6393-aff69f1363e1@redhat.com>
         <233660d0-1dee-7d80-1581-2e6845bf7689@linux-m68k.org>
         <CABRYuGk+1AGpvfkR7=LTCm+bN4kt55fwQnQXCjidSXWxuMWsiQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <95f5be1d-f5f3-478-5ccb-76556a41de78@linux-m68k.org>
         <CANiq72kOJh_rGg6cT+S833HYqwHnZJzZss8v+kQDcgz_cZUfBQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <7368bc3ea6dece01004c3e0c194abb0d26d4932b.camel@perches.com>
         <e7e99791-aade-55fd-ac75-71478699cbe0@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4-1ubuntu2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 21:22 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/3/22 15:38, Joe Perches wrote:
> > One argument is that churn leads to difficulty in backporting
> > fixes to older 'stable' versions.
> > 
> > I think the churn argument is overstated.
> 
> I'm often backporting patches to older kernels and I think the churn argument 
> has not been emphasized enough. Backporting patches is a normal aspect of a 
> product lifecycle since a kernel version is chosen when development of a 
> product starts and bugfixes are cherry-picked from upstream selectively.

Stable backporting is almost certainly what people get _paid_ to do.

IMO the most important tree is the current one not backports to stable.