From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0530 From: Vinod Koul To: Theodore Ts'o Message-ID: <20160711050000.GC9681@localhost> References: <20160709000631.GB8989@io.lakedaemon.net> <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160709093626.GA6247@sirena.org.uk> <20160710162203.GA9681@localhost> <20160710170117.GI26097@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160710170117.GI26097@thunk.org> Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 01:01:17PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:52:04PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > For patch merge, the expectation is that it is tested against upstream. > > For stable, should we also mandate that it be verified against the stable > > tree(s) as well, or if Maintainer feels it is stable material then we > > can ask Submitters to test before CCing stable... > > This is simply not realistic. > > There are **eleven** stable or longterm trees listed on kernel.org. > If you are going to ask patch submitters to test on all of the stable > trees, that pretty much guarantees that nothing at all will be cc'ed > to stable. Isn't that a part of problem as well. If I am submitting a fix, shouldn't I be able to backport and validate the fix on stable kernels? > And this doesn't into account patches that don't apply cleanly on > stable, so someone has to bash the patches until they apply. The real > problem here is that there is a significant tax which needs to be > imposed by each stable tree. You can either force maintainers to pay > the tax, or pay the patch submitters to pay the tax, or put that > burden on the stable tree maintainers. It's not clear any of this is > viable. The fix submitter is the best person to do that. Anyway when patch doesn't apply cleanly, Greg does ask submitter for backported patch > And if device kernels or BSP kernels aren't bothering to track > -stable, it becomes even more unfair to force that work on the > maintainers or patch submitters. If they are just going to be cherry > picking random patches out of the -stable kernel when they notice a > problem, does it make sense to do invest in doing full QA's for every > single commit before it goes into -stable? And IMO since submitter know the target and has the hardware for test, it would be more easy for that person to verify.. Thanks -- ~Vinod