On Mon 2018-04-16 16:37:56, Sasha Levin wrote: > 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 > >be? > > 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.
Of course not. - It must be obviously correct and tested. If it introduces new bug, it is not correct, and certainly not obviously correct. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Description: Digital signature