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.
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to