* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:59:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:00:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > Not serious, but from a distro perspective it would really be nice to > > > > have. We get queries on why it's an error and where are the firmware > > > > files for family 16h, etc. Explaining it can get tiring ;). > > > > > > I know that - that's the reason why Thomas is doing it. But a distro can > > > pick it up without the stable tag. > > > > I think here we could apply the -stable tag as a super special exception, > > because: > > > > 1) it arguably annoys/confuses a largish class of users into > > thinking their hardware or distro is possibly defective > > > > 2) the patch came from a distro maintainer > > > > 3) the patch is a oneliner change to a kernel string which > > really cannot possibly break anything > > > > But yeah, in the general case I'd agree with you, it takes a serious bug > > with serious consequences to be marked -stable. But the boundaries are > > (intentionally) grey so we can apply situational discretion to achive a > > better end result. > > Right, so probably the commit message needs a mention of some of this > above as to explain why we're bending the stable rules... again. > > But again, I don't see the need for the stable tag as distros can pick > up the patch without it - we do it all the time and RH too, I'm sure. Yes, but it's cheaper to pick it one time for the mainline kernel and let all the dozens of Linux distros have it. The 'let the distro pick the patch' applies for cases where we _disagree_ with the urgency of the patch, where the patch carries real risks, and where the distro consciously takes that risk because it thinks it has different priorities. I don't think there's much of a disagreement in this particular case: it's a bug, it annoys users, it annoys distros. The only 'weirdness' about it is that it's "too trivial" - but trivial annoyances can have a relatively high downstream cost as well, if they are prominent and scary enough ... > Adding the stable tag with a > huuge-exception-BUT-BUT-this-time-we-need-it-explanation just so to fit > some automation stuff is an overkill, if you ask me. I don't think it's a huge exception - just a somewhat unusual case. Agreed? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html