Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 05-12-16 15:43:59, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 03:39:15PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 05-12-16 15:21:37, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 03:14:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 05-12-16 14:58:24, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon 05-12-16 13:52:36, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:21:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Currently if a patch should aim a stable tree backport one should add
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # $version
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > to the s-o-b block. This has two major disadvantages a) it spams the
> > > > > > > > stable mailing list with patches which are just discussed and not merged
> > > > > > > > yet
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > That's not a problem in that I know I like to see them to give me a
> > > > > > > "heads up" that something is coming down the pipeline soon.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Are you really tracking all those discussion to catch resulting patches
> > > > > > in the Linus' tree? I simply fail to see a point having N versions of
> > > > > > the patch on the stable mailing list before it gets picked up from the
> > > > > > _Linus'_ anyayw.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I do scan them, sometimes I even find problems with them (like a zram
> > > > > "fix" that went by this weekend.)  So yes, it is always good to have
> > > > > more reviewers on patches, don't you think?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes I do agree that more review is better. But then the stable mailing
> > > > list is a complete failure in that resopect - at least for me. Why?
> > > > Simply because it doesn't contain discussion for the stable inclusion
> > > > but rather something that eventually might happen to become stable
> > > > material. This what I call noise and the reason why I've stopped
> > > > following the stable ML.
> > > 
> > > That doesn't make sense, I want to see patches that are being proposed
> > > for the stable kernels _before_ they get into the maintainers and
> > > Linus's tree, as then, it is almost always too late.
> > 
> > Too late for what? I am still not sure I see your point. Are you
> > suggesting that a review from the stable mailing list, which wouldn't
> > be a part of a standard review process normally, has helped to identify
> > issues?
> 
> Sometimes, yes, this happens.

It is really hard to argue here... But effectivelly something is really
broken when wrong/unsuitable patches marked for stable pass the maintainer.
 
> > > I will point out the zram patch this weekend as an example of that,
> > > where if the original had gone in, it would be a while before the
> > > "fixup" would have then gone in, and the abi deprecation would probably
> > > have missed 4.11 entirely.
> > 
> > I do not have a full context here. Do you have a pointer please?
> 
> A patch for the zram subsystem was cc: stable this weekend and I pointed
> out problems with it and the user/kernel api that it was modifying.  I
> would have never seen this patch otherwise.

I guess you are talking about  https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/3/257? If
yes then the patch hasn't even been taken by Andrew so I am wondering
why do mention it as a hand break coming from the stable tree.

> > > Don't you want to catch things earlier rather than later?
> > 
> > Sure, but I fail to see the role of the stable ML in this area. I might
> > be underastimating its role of course.
> 
> I think you are :)
> 
> Seeing the patches sent to the list _before_ they end up in a
> maintainers tree, or Linus's tree, helps some issues to be resolved.
> Most of the time it just lets me know what to watch out for, and what
> areas of the kernel are having lots of issues.
> 
> Given that the current maintainers of the stable kernels don't seem to
> be objecting to the current setup of this list, I find it odd that you
> wish to change it :)

The reason I came up with this is simple and I have mentioned that in
the changelog. I just thought we might improve the process a bit, if
there is no demand for that then I will not push for it. This is an RFC
after all.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs