On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:30:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:19:14 +0000
>Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >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.
>Honestly, I think that removes all value of the stable series. I
>remember when the stable series were first created. People were saying
>that it wouldn't even get to more than 5 versions, because the bar for
>backporting was suppose to be very high. Today it's just a fork of the
>kernel at a given version. No more features, but we will be OK with
>regressions. I'm struggling to see what the benefit of it is suppose to

It's not "OK with regressions".

Let's look at a hypothetical example: You have a 4.15.1 kernel that has
a broken printf() behaviour so that when you:

        pr_err("%d", 5)

Would print:

        "Microsoft Rulez"

Bad, right? So you went ahead and fixed it, and now it prints "5" as you
might expect. But alas, with your patch, running:

        pr_err("%s", "hi!")

Would show a cat picture for 5 seconds.

Should we take your patch in -stable or not? If we don't, we're stuck
with the original issue while the mainline kernel will behave
differently, but if we do - we introduce a new regression.

So it's not the case that a -stable kernel will have *more* regression,
it'll just have similar ones to mainline.

Reply via email to