On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:31:09 +0000 Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:22:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:14:15 +0000 > >Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were > >> seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing? > > > >Does that mean we just doubled the rate of regressions? That's the > >problem. > > No, the rate stayed the same :) > > If before ~2% of stable commits were buggy, this is still the case with > AUTOSEL. Sorry, I didn't mean "rate" I meant "number". If the rate stayed the same, that means the number increased. > > >> > >> How do you know if a bug bothers someone? > >> > >> If a user is annoyed by a LED issue, is he expected to triage the bug, > >> report it on LKML and patiently wait for the appropriate patch to be > >> backported? > > > >Yes. > > I'm honestly not sure how to respond. > > Let me ask my wife (who is happy using Linux as a regular desktop user) > how comfortable she would be with triaging kernel bugs... That's really up to the distribution, not the main kernel stable. Does she download and compile the kernels herself? Does she use LEDs? The point is, stable is to keep what was working continued working. If we don't care about introducing a regression, and just want to keep regressions the same as mainline, why not just go to mainline? That way you can also get the new features? Mainline already has the mantra to not break user space. When I work on new features, I sometimes stumble on bugs with the current features. And some of those fixes require a rewrite. It was "good enough" before, but every so often could cause a bug that the new feature would trigger more often. Do we back port that rewrite? Do we backport fixes to old code that are more likely to be triggered by new features? Ideally, we should be working on getting to no regressions to stable. -- Steve