On Fri, 2019-11-01 at 04:07 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:53:23PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 22:14 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 12:05 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 19:03 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
3.16.76-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
This seems more like an enhancement than a bug fix.
Is this really the type of patch that is appropriate for stable?
Apparently so:
v4.14.135: eba797dbf352 KVM: x86/vPMU: refine kvm_pmu err msg when event creation failed v4.19.61: ba27a25df6df KVM: x86/vPMU: refine kvm_pmu err msg when event creation failed v4.4.187: 505c011f9f53 KVM: x86/vPMU: refine kvm_pmu err msg when event creation failed v4.9.187: 3984eae04473 KVM: x86/vPMU: refine kvm_pmu err msg when event creation failed v5.1.20: edadec197fbf KVM: x86/vPMU: refine kvm_pmu err msg when event creation failed v5.2.3: 9f062aef7356 KVM: x86/vPMU: refine kvm_pmu err msg when event creation failed
I think not, but hey, maybe you and Greg do.
Porting enhancements, even trivial ones, imo is not a great thing for stable branches.
My perspective is that only bug fixes should be applied to stable branches.
Usability issues are just as bad as code bugs. Our human interface is at least as important as the functionality of our code.
Umm.
#define DEBUG is not set here.
Changing from printk_once to pr_debug_ratelimited completely eliminates the output from non CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG configs, and this output message is not enabled by default either.