On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000 >Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility": >> we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable. >> If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way. > >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.
