lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes
    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.
    >
    > 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
    --
    (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
    (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-05-03 11:47    [W:3.251 / U:0.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site