On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:55:25AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:05 AM Daniel Burgener
<dburgener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, thank you. I will fix up the series with the third commit
included, and add commit ids. Thanks.
Greg and I have different opinions on what is classified as a good
candidate for the -stable trees, but in my opinion this patch series
doesn't qualify. There are a lot of dependencies, it is intertwined
with a lot of code, and the issue that this patchset fixes has been
around for a *long* time. I personally feel the risk of backporting
this to -stable does not outweigh the potential wins.
My understanding is that while the issue Daniel is fixing here has been
around for a while, it's also very real - the reports suggest a failure
rate of 1-2% on boot.
I do understand your concerns around this series, but given it was just
fixed upstream we don't have a better story than "sit tight for the
next LTS" to tell to users affected by this issue.
Is there a scenario where you'd feel safer with the series? I suspect
that if it doesn't go into upstream stable Daniel will end up carrying
it out of tree anyway, so maybe we can ask Daniel to do targetted
testing for the next week or two and report back?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
