On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:20:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:25:15 +0100 > Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I agree to the last point and yeah, maybe regressions are the more > > important problem we should work on – at least from the perspective of > > kernel development. But from the users perspective (and > > reporting-issues.rst is written for that perspective) it feel a bit > > unsatisfying to not have a solution to query for existing report, > > regressions or not. Hmmmm... > > I think the bulk of user issues are going to be regressions. Although you > may be in a better position to know for sure, but at least for me, wearing > my "user" hat, the thing that gets me the most is upgrading to a new kernel > and suddenly something that use to work no longer does. And that is the > definition of a regression. My test boxes still run old distros (one is > running fedora 13). These are the boxes that catch the most issues, and if > they do, they are pretty much guaranteed to be a regression. I think it depends on the user and the subsystem. You're a sophisticated user, but I've fielded a goodly number of ext4 "bug reports" which were coming from a Ubuntu 16.04 kernel, or a user who is seeing a block device issue (either a driver bug or a hardware failure), or in some cases both. A lot of these "bug reports" would be headed off at the pass if we advertised: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html much more heavily; assuming we can get the users to actually read it, first. - Ted
