On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 15:35 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > So the problem is that maintainers are lazy. They don't want to go
> > back for bug fixes that have "proven" themselves, and even if they
> > aren't critical bug fixes, they are things which a distro maintainer
> > or a stable kernel user might want (and sometimes stable uers are
> > uppity enough to expect subsystem maintainers to do this back
> > porting). So subsystem maintainers then react by marking submits for
> > stable even though they really should soak for a release or two before
> > submitting them, since by marking them as submit, the commit gets
> > pushed to stable automatically --- albeit early.
>
> Actually, this is a very good point. There were one or two stable
> patches I had pushed to linux-next that I wasn't too comfortable about.
> If the fix goes back to older trees, I rather have them stirring in
> linux-next and push it in the next merge window instead of pushing it to
> Linus and have it go to stable immediately.
>
> Unless its a obvious fix, I tend to take about a month from the time I
> get a stable fix to the time I push it out. Making sure the stable fix
> doesn't introduce new bugs.
Like most of the other examples in this thread, one size doesn't fit all though.
Your example above: If that fix was for "tracing reports wrong results", no big
deal,
everyone can live with it for a month. If it was fixing "a bug in tracing can
allow
an unprivileged user to crash the kernel", a month is unacceptable, and at
the least we should be getting an interim fix to mitigate the problem.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
