From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f70.google.com (mail-it0-f70.google.com [209.85.214.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441636B0003 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it0-f70.google.com with SMTP id m134-v6so10189004itb.9 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id g129-v6sor4487508itd.148.2018.04.16.12.28.22 for (Google Transport Security); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180416152429.529e3cba@gandalf.local.home> 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> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:28:21 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Steven Rostedt 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, 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? 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. Linus