Received: by 10.223.164.202 with SMTP id h10csp3682198wrb; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:22:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYym3ciKrVMdK1pDDejG0RboNeGkHiyNdMk+SNGvO3pcQ4+Z1DH/lh+XFISJtKxZtdY3Dmb X-Received: by 10.101.66.11 with SMTP id c11mr12909681pgq.169.1511176964513; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:22:44 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1511176964; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=i8nXVZjrji4b70HlnchwU5TEdY//iT2U+gi8a4vWUQYyKQsg3wNA7uA06/fjKTbwrM EBlzsvgBWkVE4jrGJB8BpvUJJtr7UFtmEJ3hJMp4EquP3/x2aynguGiN/YiAWqAwVqAZ MyFY1uSqevopmcpBF1OjO2WpAPSaSGcHkuNNro0YyWW42HL9Tc9AtUJAoXFF9TD02Ze0 x0HwXO/DNCd9idKm6o6m2reglkYvAPd4dwQi/jui5N9IE+0OdaYYuNHHuIGeQdD1oZLh 8VBe6cuFUzi0/PyC59OFCSFZ0kEj14zTDd+LnO7BpwwBBd04oVXFNLKlieB6/IedVhz4 H1vw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:dkim-signature:arc-authentication-results; bh=MgUJzRFxoM/qPJW0C6ahyHxqWOYGnHcQ9ljPbwCfH9I=; b=DfmM+0jj2OX9epbKqIgRZLZ/95dnHtGE2+Q/8sCecPIAXEYSeuMF7TuvlIbuF9cm5t RoeFfqXautzC9GXFeiDLr+20xkx84CGuBKQGyK6c7Fraz8y+guXr7xxWtKhGoOlUsjMs /7h0gJ5oiI9hItj/TX7Ad1zpo4nFVwXsnXr+BY/o1jFGlaIQrjESOvagp5FSDsikhQwe 1iZ2shtrjizHyIAhawSk1xBUSooCHesYBQ5rRVP5ot/NwUnjLL7/FPXnW5SB4sbZIfch tfJ/q+Rh6h2bdmn7xoAMQmZ4NLsHfqCMCsbG50+Hm07QwG5JtFSsoummLLvHnDQScY21 ByfQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=MmtVtM6X; 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=NONE 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 o3si8045016pld.135.2017.11.20.03.22.34; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:22:44 -0800 (PST) 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=MmtVtM6X; 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=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751081AbdKTLV4 (ORCPT + 67 others); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:21:56 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f174.google.com ([209.85.128.174]:43688 "EHLO mail-wr0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750764AbdKTLVy (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:21:54 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u40so7726552wrf.10; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:21:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MgUJzRFxoM/qPJW0C6ahyHxqWOYGnHcQ9ljPbwCfH9I=; b=MmtVtM6XN+jlmdWsFhh1IYp8lvI1ZLQ0x0Kx8dQIi2PfGsYcgx63mz6JQ5W/vxoL7g GhhHNosjq+8soVsCoG/aA9uKmHM6+0KxDEhRFgicKNU+MaX/2zIZIwx6EKlnId5R1d/V CTvEMdLrXaSh1xksRUdTb5ia0pwedhFbwhzH++XoyVPGSdiIQMlByAkehn+2Hg1ec4J6 9qwiHaQHUOQ5+9UDsKfxCr80tVCM6aAVoPw4n/BfN5XLUW7GpwVKv3zAKLZNP1ZGcZ0z VjVHAAvDQVXlqM2ZlQD7NpKJ763KR38Fu5z6DqaxEFySy5spru1hHoS4uCNPcxOlc6bZ V+IA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MgUJzRFxoM/qPJW0C6ahyHxqWOYGnHcQ9ljPbwCfH9I=; b=lsUTo8Z5Byin6NK9u+XahzfzrJwuc811IZo6K7+J3xDY66vxeco0CEdPF5WbDwuaHA 3O5T2a1eENnJ2c7Wj0XADU7Vbd48w4qsBkA5La/i3P0jph+ubmCxri5lfcvgsX3p6pOC f2ZUlBXzWTY/evSFYs+MTFWHinF4v7SOqE6okbF6iuBuvfny788vWVpcep93AYfu/I47 tM6vN3quUWkQUHg1iLrmvcnqOsaPl1fsw0APhEQlM9mZy3wmI4AkTT9YQBQfnjlImJep dCal+HHG0BXPXm1btE8EcRR3wO9m4ZKAGPp5MsWVckz3dH4dqkMNUfaGqA+che65jCCV llow== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4RGemtv0oGQakC9vysAC1DApSj+0IlfCzekhJ7Qn1ZmqtEV+c5 2RACA6aHRlZvm3m2NkvWHk0y28oc2xJk40IGzdw= X-Received: by 10.223.201.7 with SMTP id m7mr9148654wrh.68.1511176913562; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:21:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.87.147 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:21:52 -0800 (PST) From: Emil Velikov Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:21:52 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Autoselect patches for stable (Was: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV) To: Greg KH Cc: Jani Nikula , "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , alexander.levin@verizon.com, ML dri-devel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, Since I'm going slightly off-topic, I've tweaked the subject line and trimmed some of the conversation. I believe everyone in the CC list might be interested in the following, yet feel free to adjust. Above all, I'd kindly ask everyone to skim through and draw their conclusions. If the ideas put forward have some value - great, if not - let my email rot. On 17 November 2017 at 13:57, Greg KH wrote: >> >> I still have no idea how this autoselect picks up patches that do *not* >> have cc: stable nor Fixes: from us. What information do you have that we >> don't for making that call? > > I'll let Sasha describe how he's doing this, but in the end, does it > really matter _how_ it is done, vs. the fact that it seems to at least > one human reviewer that this is a patch that _should_ be included based > on the changelog text and the code patch? > > By having this review process that Sasha is providing, he's saying > "Here's a patch that I think might be good for stable, do you object?" > > If you do, great, no harm done, all is fine, the patch is dropped. If > you don't object, just ignore the email and the patch gets merged. > > If you don't want any of this to happen for your subsystem at all, then > also fine, just let us know and we will ignore it entirely. > Let me start with saying that I'm handling the releases for Mesa 3D - the project providing OpenGL, Vulkan and many other userspace graphics drivers. I've been doing that for 3 years now, which admittedly is quite a short time relative to the kernel. There is a procedure quite similar to the kernel, with a few differences - see below for details. We also autoselect patches, hence my interest in the heuristics applied for nominating patches ;-) That aside, here are some things I've learned from my experience. Some of those may not be applicable - hope you'll find them useful: - Try to reference developers to existing documentation/procedure. Was just reminded that even long standing developers can forget detail X or Y. - CC developers for the important stuff - aka do not CC on each accepted patch. Accepted patches are merged in pre-release branch and a email with accepted/deferred/rejected list is sent. Patches that had conflicts merging, and ones that are rejected have their author in the CC list. Rejected patches have brief description + developers are contacted beforehand. - Autoselect patches are merged only with the approval from the respective developers. IMHO this engages developers into the process, without distracting them too much. It is by no means a perfect system - input and changes are always appreciated. That said, here are some suggestions which should make autosel smoother: - Document the autoselect process Information about about What, Why, and [ideally] How - analogous to the normal stable nominations. Insert reference to the process in the patch notification email. - Make the autoselect nominations _more_ distinct than the normal stable ones. Maintainers will want to put more cognitive effort into the patches. HTH Emil From 1584733606591944416@xxx Wed Nov 22 03:02:18 +0000 2017 X-GM-THRID: 1584732485805515019 X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread