From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44306B88 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0DFC7C for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55A45D2F.5050705@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:51:59 -0400 From: Sasha Levin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH , NeilBrown References: <55A1407E.5080800@oracle.com> <55A26C5B.8060007@oracle.com> <20150713105210.6e367f4b@noble> <20150713205125.GA26074@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20150713205125.GA26074@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/13/2015 04:51 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:52:10AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: >> >> I've been bitten by this a couple of times too. At least two fairly >> serious md bugs *never* got into a release from Linus, but did get into >> -stable and at least one into a vendor kernel. > > How did that happen? Did I not wait for a -rc release? Did I miss > something else? What broke down that caused this? This is a good point in general: it seems that a few folks have reported issues where stable bit them in the arse, and if it happens to kernel folks it happens to regular users too. It'll be interesting to hear those incidents and figure out what went wrong if you end up getting bitten by one, the stable folks do really want to know when things don't work out right. >> On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 09:32:11 -0400 Sasha Levin >> wrote: >> >> >>>> So it boils down to: "How soon to apply fixes to -stable?", and the trade-off >>>> between applying fixes early, but risking to break something unknown and new, >>>> vs. applying fixes late (after more validation), causing more breakage from a >>>> known issue. >>> >>> That's just one solution, but there are a few more (which is why it's worth discussing >>> it :) ). >>> >>> Consider also: >>> >>> - Aligning the stable release process with the kernel where we'd do a few release >>> candidates for the stable kernel before releasing it. >>> >>> - Tightening what is allowed to go in as -rc patches, requiring some time in -next >>> before it even gets into Linus's hands. Even for "serious" things (does it matter if >>> a fix for a privesc gets in -rc2 or -rc6, beyond that it would be pulled to stable >>> earlier?) >>> >>> - Differentiate the type of patches going into "regular" -stable, and LTS? >>> >> >> My proposal would be to change the default timing. >> Currently patches tagged for 'stable' go into the next -stable release >> after they get into Linus's tree. You can ask for an exception >> (sooner, later, different patch) and Greg (or any other stable >> maintainer) tries to be accommodating. But you have to remember to ask. >> >> I would rather that the default was that patches don't go into -stable >> until they have >> - been in a full release from Linus and >> - been in a Linus's tree for at least 2 weeks. >> (or 1 week times the age of the target in releases. >> So a fix in 4.4 get to 4.3-stable after a week, 4.2-stable >> after 2 weeks etc .... maybe I'm going over-board here). >> >> Many fixes are important but simply aren't that urgent so the two or >> more weeks is no great cost. > > Really? Based on the traffic I get, I have people asking me why a patch > is in Linus's tree is not yet in a -stable release about once a week or > so. > > A year or so ago we made the decision to wait for a patch to show up in > a -rc release before adding it to -stable because people felt I was > being "too fast". So we did that, and now people want to wait even > longer? I don't buy it, and feel that will only delay the problem > another week. > > If you look closely, you will note that for the past 3 months or so, > I've already been waiting an extra -rc release as it is, just due to > spare time issues on my side (travel, outreachy review, etc.). And even > with that delay (which people do keep bugging me about, see the ALSA > email this weekend for an example of such a thing), we get bugs > introduced into -stable releases. > > So I don't think that a manditory 2 week waiting period is going to help > out much here, sorry. > > If it gets into Linus's tree you had better think it is correct, > especially if you tag it for stable. Yes, bugs happen, that's part of > life, but let's not slow down everyone just because we get 1-2 bugs > introduced into -stable every 6 months or so. Looking back at the git log and my notes, it would have prevented 6 bugs that I had to revert/apply a different fix to. I guess it depends if there's a magic number here that will make everyone change their mind. What's your opinion about introducing RC pre-releases for stable kernel? if someone cares about getting a particular fix he can use the RC, if he cares more about having a tested kernel he'll wait another week or two for the release. Thanks, Sasha