Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes

[Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:06:08 +0200
>Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
>> That means you want to ignore not-so-serious bugs, because benefit of
>> fixing them is lower than risk of the regressions. I believe bugs that
>> do not bother anyone should _not_ be fixed in stable.
>>
>> That was case of the LED patch. Yes, the commit fixed bug, but it
>> introduced regressions that were fixed by subsequent patches.
>
>I agree. I would disagree that the patch this thread is on should go to
>stable. What's the point of stable if it introduces regressions by
>backporting bug fixes for non major bugs.

One such reason is that users will then hit the regression when they
upgrade to the next -stable version anyways.

>Every fix I make I consider labeling it for stable. The ones I don't, I
>feel the bug fix is not worth the risk of added regressions.
>
>I worry that people will get lazy and stop marking commits for stable
>(or even thinking about it) because they know that there's a bot that
>will pull it for them. That thought crossed my mind. Why do I want to
>label anything stable if a bot will probably catch it. Then I could
>just wait till the bot posts it before I even think about stable.

People are already "lazy". You are actually an exception for marking your
commits.

Yes, folks will chime in with "sure, I mark my patches too!", but if you
look at the entire committer pool in the kernel you'll see that most
don't bother with this to begin with.