From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f69.google.com (mail-lf0-f69.google.com [209.85.215.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F276B0003 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v198-v6so9348lfa.17 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 04:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.yrkesakademin.fi (mx2.yrkesakademin.fi. [85.134.45.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c25si1366438ljb.189.2018.04.19.04.43.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 04:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes References: <20180409001936.162706-1-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180409001936.162706-15-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180409082246.34hgp3ymkfqke3a4@pathway.suse.cz> <20180415144248.GP2341@sasha-vm> <20180416093058.6edca0bb@gandalf.local.home> <20180416113629.2474ae74@gandalf.local.home> <20180416160200.GY2341@sasha-vm> <20180416121224.2138b806@gandalf.local.home> <20180416161911.GA2341@sasha-vm> From: Thomas Backlund Message-ID: <7d5de770-aee7-ef71-3582-5354c38fc176@mageia.org> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:41:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180416161911.GA2341@sasha-vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Language: sv Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sasha Levin , Steven Rostedt Cc: Linus Torvalds , 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 , Pavel Machek Den 16-04-2018 kl. 19:19, skrev Sasha Levin: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000 >> Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>> One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility": >>> we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable. >>> If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way. >> >> Wait! What does that mean? What's the purpose of stable if it is as >> broken as mainline? > > This just means that if there is a fix that went in mainline, and the > fix is broken somehow, we'd rather take the broken fix than not. > > In this scenario, *something* will be broken, it's just a matter of > what. We'd rather have the same thing broken between mainline and > stable. > Yeah, but _intentionally_ breaking existing setups to stay "bug compatible" _is_ a _regression_ you _really_ _dont_ want in a stable supported distro. Because end-users dont care about upstream breaking stuff... its the distro that takes the heat for that... Something "already broken" is not a regression... As distro maintainer that means one now have to review _every_ patch that carries "AUTOSEL", follow all the mail threads that comes up about it, then track if it landed in -stable queue, and read every response and possible objection to all patches in the -stable queue a second time around... then check if it still got included in final stable point relase and then either revert them in distro kernel or go track down all the follow-up fixes needed... Just to avoid being "bug compatible with master" -- Thomas