On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:31:25PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 19:20 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
So far the AUTOSEL tool has found so many real bugfixes that it isn't funny. If you don't like it, fine, but it has proven itself _way_ beyond my wildest hopes already, and it just keeps getting better.
Now i really don't know what the right balance here, in on one hand, autosel is doing a great job, on the other hand we know it can screw up in some cases, and we know it will.
So we decided to make sacrifices for the greater good ? :)
autosel is going to screw up, I'm going to screw up, you're going to screw up, and Linus is going screw up. The existence of the stable trees and a "Fixes:" tag is an admission we all screw up, right?
If you're willing to accept that we all make mistakes, you should also accept that we're making mistakes everywhere: we write buggy code, we fail at reviews, we forget tags, and we suck at backporting patches.
If we agree so far, then why do you assume that the same people who do the above also perfectly tag their commits, and do perfect selection of patches for stable? "I'm always right except when I'm wrong".
My view of the the path forward with stable trees is that we have to beef up our validation and testing story to be able to catch these issues better, rather than place arbitrary limitations on parts of the process. To me your suggestions around the Fixes: tag sound like "Never use kmalloc() because people often forget to free memory!" will it prevent memory leaks? sure, but it'll also prevent useful patches from coming it...
Here's my suggestion: give us a test rig we can run our stable release candidates through. Something that simulates "real" load that customers are using. We promise that we won't release a stable kernel if your tests are failing.