From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E656B0003 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:38:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id 91-v6so10848961plf.6 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org. [198.145.29.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v31-v6si12808037plg.157.2018.04.16.12.38.20 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:38:16 -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: <20180416153816.292a5b5c@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> <20180416144117.5757ee70@gandalf.local.home> <20180416152429.529e3cba@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 12:28:21 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Right, but the fix to the API was also trivial. I don't understand why > > you are arguing with me. I agree with you. I'm talking about this > > specific instance. Where a bug was fixed, and the API breakage was > > another fix that needed to be backported. > > Fair enough. Were you there when the report of breakage came in? No I wasn't. > > Because *my* argument is that reverting something that causes problems > is simply *never* the wrong answer. > > If you know of the fix, fine. But clearly people DID NOT KNOW. So > reverting was the right choice. But I don't see in the git history that this was ever reverted. My reply saying that "I hope it wasn't reverted", was a response for it being reverted in stable, not mainline. Considering that the original bug would allow userspace to write zeros anywhere in memory, I would have definitely worked on finding why the API breakage happened and fixing it properly before putting such a large hole back into the kernel. I'm assuming that may have been what happened because the commit was never reverted in your tree, and if I was responsible for that code, I would be up all night looking for an API fix to make sure the original fix isn't reverted. -- Steve