From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f198.google.com (mail-pf0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22176B0006 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f198.google.com with SMTP id q15so9883314pff.15 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org. [198.145.29.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s16-v6si836403plp.487.2018.04.16.11.41.21 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:41:17 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes Message-ID: <20180416144117.5757ee70@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20180416153031.GA5039@amd> <20180416155031.GX2341@sasha-vm> <20180416160608.GA7071@amd> <20180416122019.1c175925@gandalf.local.home> <20180416162757.GB2341@sasha-vm> <20180416163952.GA8740@amd> <20180416164310.GF2341@sasha-vm> <20180416125307.0c4f6f28@gandalf.local.home> <20180416170936.GI2341@sasha-vm> <20180416133321.40a166a4@gandalf.local.home> <20180416174236.GL2341@sasha-vm> <20180416142653.0f017647@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Sasha Levin , Pavel Machek , Petr Mladek , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Cong Wang , Dave Hansen , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Peter Zijlstra , Jan Kara , Mathieu Desnoyers , Tetsuo Handa , Byungchul Park , Tejun Heo , Greg KH On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:30:06 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > The problem is that it only fixed a critical bug, but didn't go far > > enough to keep the bug fix from breaking API. > > An API breakage that gets noticed *is* a crtitical bug. I totally agree with you. You misunderstood what I wrote. I said there were two bugs here. The first bug was a possible accessing bad memory bug. That needed to be fixed. The problem was by fixing that, it broke API. But that's because the original code was broken where it relied on broken code to get right. I never said the second bug fix should not have been backported. I even said that the first bug "didn't go far enough". I hope the answer was not to revert the bug and put back the possible bad memory access in to keep API. But it was to backport the second bug fix that still has the first fix, but fixes the API breakage. Yes, an API breakage is something I would label as critical to be backported. -- Steve