From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751726AbcLEOOz (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:14:55 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:34045 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750849AbcLEOOx (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:14:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:14:51 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Greg KH Cc: LKML , Stable tree , Andy Lutomirski , Willy Tarreau , Jiri Kosina Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Message-ID: <20161205141451.GK30758@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20161205072154.8177-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161205125236.GA19696@kroah.com> <20161205130507.GH30758@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161205135824.GA30013@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161205135824.GA30013@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 05-12-16 14:58:24, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 05-12-16 13:52:36, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:21:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > > > > > Currently if a patch should aim a stable tree backport one should add > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # $version > > > > > > > > to the s-o-b block. This has two major disadvantages a) it spams the > > > > stable mailing list with patches which are just discussed and not merged > > > > yet > > > > > > That's not a problem in that I know I like to see them to give me a > > > "heads up" that something is coming down the pipeline soon. > > > > Are you really tracking all those discussion to catch resulting patches > > in the Linus' tree? I simply fail to see a point having N versions of > > the patch on the stable mailing list before it gets picked up from the > > _Linus'_ anyayw. > > I do scan them, sometimes I even find problems with them (like a zram > "fix" that went by this weekend.) So yes, it is always good to have > more reviewers on patches, don't you think? Yes I do agree that more review is better. But then the stable mailing list is a complete failure in that resopect - at least for me. Why? Simply because it doesn't contain discussion for the stable inclusion but rather something that eventually might happen to become stable material. This what I call noise and the reason why I've stopped following the stable ML. > > > I don't think anyone has ever complained of this before, do you? > > > > This is the reason I have stopped following the stable mailing list. > > The noise level is just too high. > > What "noise"? It's all patches that are being addressed to the stable > kernels, how is that off-topic? What do you expect to be posted to this > list? Patches which are final and target the stable tree. I do not have to see N versions of patchesets which evolve in the time just to see that something completely different has been merged to the Linus tree. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs