On 10/5/2017 3:04 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:22:06PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
On 10/4/2017 3:44 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 11:03 -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
Hi Doug,
There are a couple fixes in here that would have been nice to get
into the RC
cycle, including one marked stable. However I think you will find
them to be
too many LOC for an rc-4 submission so I have sent them in one series
for-next.
Patches 2,3,4 and 5 are the fixes. Patch 2 is small but it's not
really that
important to the end user.
There are some clean ups in here from Don from the 16B changes. One
takes care
of some sparse warnings and the other two are from a WARN_ON_ONCE
that needed
special cased for OPA.
Patches can can also be found in my GitHub repo at:
https://github.com/ddalessa/kernel/tree/for-4.15
Hi Denny,
I didn't process that you mixed for-rc and for-next stuff in a single
thread before I had gone through and looked at the patches and
processed them. So, this time they all went to for-next. In the
future, you really need patches you want in for-rc separate from the
patches intended for for-next.
Maybe I wasn't too clear, I didn't intend any of those to go for-rc. So yep
for-next was the right target.
I would have liked to get the fixes into -rc but they were just too complex
for this late in the game is all I meant.
IMHO, the number of LOCs shouldn't be the gating factor for -rc, but the
severity of fixes yes.
Not the gating factor necessarily, but a factor that has to be be
weighed against the severity of the bug being fixed. As we get into
later -rc cycles the bar for risk vs reward gets raised, not that there
should be a limit of X LOC for -rc whatever it's more of an overall
assessment of the risk of causing more harm than good.
-Denny