On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 04:27:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > [ added stable folks ] > > On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 11:17:09 -0700 > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:11 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, I'm leaning toward suggesting that we apply the trivial tracing > > > fix and backport *that*. Then, in -tip, we could revert it and apply > > > this patch instead. > > > > You don't have to have the same fix in stable as in -tip. > > > > It's fine to send something to stable that says "Fixed differently by > > commit XYZ upstream". The main thing is to make sure that stable > > doesn't have fixes that then get lost upstream (which we used to have > > long long ago). > > > > But isn't it easier for them to just pull the quick fix in, if it is in > your tree? That is, it shouldn't be too hard to make the "quick fix" > that gets backported on your tree (and probably better testing), and > then add the proper fix on top of it. The stable folks will then just > use the commit sha to know what to take, and feel more confident about > taking it. It all depends on what the "quick fix" is. The reason I want to take the exact same patch that is in Linus's tree is that 95% of the time that we do a "one off" patch for stable only, it's wrong. We _ALWAYS_ get it wrong somehow, it's crazy how bad we are at this. I don't know why this is, but we have the stats to prove it. Because of this, I now require the "one off" stable only fixes to get a bunch of people reviewing it and write up a bunch of explaination as to why this is the way it is and why we can't just take whatever is in mainline. thanks, greg k-h
