From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15295E732CC for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:04:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232655AbjI1NEZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:04:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36218 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232666AbjI1NEQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:04:16 -0400 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5FAE1B7 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 06:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E11F8C433C8; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:04:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1695906255; bh=JuiGqphlzi+zpVMiN/0CFYkzc2zHSO21pjDawbVduIw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BfZdbE/d88ZSxbSf3ugJGDmyLrrX/+qvOAAwh7bNHjAPd9LXdVy5UtL//J3aJHhbO 4gWJsnPjPj/WQeWS7+nQ31RBYNyBtR1Fptn7RSRoFQj2WAgAHF4lSBdHyxULh55HgB Pmi4aEk4MtPeP2e8RHDI/ixIEAo10tmifKFDOsXE= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:04:11 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Linux regressions mailing list Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux regressions report for mainline [2023-09-24] Message-ID: <2023092846-envy-underpaid-cd36@gregkh> References: <169557219938.3206394.2779757887621800924@leemhuis.info> <2023092522-climatic-commend-8c99@gregkh> <0efa9992-c2f8-4ae3-943f-9b17d0e1b1b7@leemhuis.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0efa9992-c2f8-4ae3-943f-9b17d0e1b1b7@leemhuis.info> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 25.09.23 10:02, Greg KH wrote: > > I've been > > traveling all last week and this week for conferences so my response > > times have been a bit slow, sorry. > > No worries, I already suspected this[1]. The major aspect in this whole > episode that bugs me a lot is different anyway: > > Wouldn't it have been much much better to revert[2] the culprit quickly > once it was known to cause a regression that annoyed some users a whole > lot[3, 4]? Possibly, yes. It's a balancing act between keeping the pressure on the developer to provide a fix, vs. the severity of the issue and how wide-spread it is, vs. my ability to do anything at all due to non-development issues (i.e. travel and conference work.) Trying to pick the best thing with all of those is hard, sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we get it wrong, usually someone is upset no matter what we pick, including a lack of sleep for the maintainer. So "it's complicated", as you know... thanks, greg k-h