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 A6BA5C43217 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242623AbiC3EiW (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:38:22 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44684 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242667AbiC3EiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:38:18 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43E9A22B24; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 21:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D60A061560; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE474C340F0; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1648614993; bh=pYArpFbewAQPlyehfe9Ax847/durxWMKTHZCv43s+gI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=S7zLHVjEdfr3mUJkJ0tsFbL3eqz4As+/Xl9nN0DxlXf1d4VLODh/cirbPzlvT1+NU TxtDV0iL0j1Abe2LBh2Wx9RHVUgC4N/7eXGKl2PhBsWW6tZ+2J8tr/9MuBm0dGOZ6U 75q6Fz5jFVmWdPKPkS5e5rEj6gNE+diJhI4Kh4C4= Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 06:36:30 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Alexey Khoroshilov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, lwn@lwn.net, jslaby@suse.cz Subject: Re: Stable release process proposal (Was: Linux 5.10.109) Message-ID: References: <164845571613863@kroah.com> <44e28591-873a-d873-e04a-78dda900a5de@ispras.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <44e28591-873a-d873-e04a-78dda900a5de@ispras.ru> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:49:00AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: > Dear Greg, > > First of all, thank you very much for keeping stable maintenance so well. > > We (Linux Verification Center of ISPRAS (linuxtesting.org)) are going to > join a team of regular testers for releases in 5.10 stable branch (and > other branches later). We are deploying some test automation for that > and have met an oddity that would to discuss. > > Sometimes, like in 5.10.109 release, we have a situation when a > released version (5.10.109) differs from the release candidate > (5.10.109-rс1). In this case there was a patch "llc: only change > llc->dev when bind()succeeds" added to fix a bug in another llc fix. > Unfortunately, as Pavel noted, this patch does not fix a bug, but > introduces a new one, because another commit b37a46683739 ("netdevice: > add the case if dev is NULL") was missed in 5.10 branch. This happens quite frequently due to issues found in testing. It's not a new thing. > The problem will be fixed in 5.10.110, but we still have a couple oddities: > - we have a release that should not be recommended for use > - we have a commit message misleading users when says: > > Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) > Tested-by: Fox Chen > Tested-by: Florian Fainelli > Tested-by: Shuah Khan > Tested-by: Bagas Sanjaya > Tested-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso > Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing > Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee > Tested-by: Guenter Roeck > > but actually nobody tested that version. > > There are potential modifications in stable release process that can > prevent such problems: > > (1) to always release rс2 when there are changes in rc1 introduced > > (2) to avoid Tested-by: section from release commits in such situations. > > Or may be it is overkill and it too complicates maintenance work to be > worth. What do you think? I think it's not worth the extra work on my side for this given the already large workload. What would benifit from this to justify it? thanks, greg k-h