On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:30:06 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The problem is that it only fixed a critical bug, but didn't go far > > enough to keep the bug fix from breaking API. > > An API breakage that gets noticed *is* a crtitical bug. I totally agree with you. You misunderstood what I wrote. I said there were two bugs here. The first bug was a possible accessing bad memory bug. That needed to be fixed. The problem was by fixing that, it broke API. But that's because the original code was broken where it relied on broken code to get right. I never said the second bug fix should not have been backported. I even said that the first bug "didn't go far enough". I hope the answer was not to revert the bug and put back the possible bad memory access in to keep API. But it was to backport the second bug fix that still has the first fix, but fixes the API breakage. Yes, an API breakage is something I would label as critical to be backported. -- Steve
