From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f199.google.com (mail-io0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411C46B0003
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-io0-f199.google.com with SMTP id o132so14864152iod.11
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id a6-v6sor4560264ite.27.2018.04.16.12.31.10
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwjSRZDT1f99QdY-Q5R4W_asb_1mZgM69YOqRR9-efmwA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
 <CA+55aFzggPvS2MwFnKfXs6yHUQrbrJH7uyY4=znwetcdEXmZrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180416144117.5757ee70@gandalf.local.home> <CA+55aFyyZ7KmXbEa151JP287vypJAkxugW17YC7Q1B9=TnyHkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180416152429.529e3cba@gandalf.local.home> <CA+55aFwjSRZDT1f99QdY-Q5R4W_asb_1mZgM69YOqRR9-efmwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:31:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxVg4FOhvxcrqi7Fs8ohsgSh8DURu3ESbovc_sBxxxpiQ@mail.gmail.com>
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: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> If you know of the fix, fine. But clearly people DID NOT KNOW. So
> reverting was the right choice.

.. and this is obviously different in stable and in mainline.

For example, I start reverting very aggressively only at the end of a
release. If I get a bisected bug report in the last week, I generally
revert without much argument, unless the author of the patch has an
immediate fix.

In contrast, during the merge window and the early rc's, I'm perfectly
happy to say "ok, let's see if somebody can fix this" and not really
consider a revert.

But the -stable tree?

Seriously, what do you expect them to do if they get a report that a
commit they added to the stable tree regresses?

"Revert first, ask questions later" is definitely a very sane model there.

                  Linus