On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:20:39PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 05:34:24PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > >Moreover, what the hell do you suggest in situation when > > > * foofs_barf() is b0rken in quite a few ways. There's an > > >easily triggerable memory corruptor that can be fixed locally as well > > >as something else that needs a change of e.g. ->mkdir() calling > > >conventions to take care of. The change is mechanical and fairly > > >simple, but it's already -rc4. > > > > I'm not advocating to forcefully block people from submitting patches > > after -rc4 (that was Ted's suggesting). > > I am, though - change of a method signature when we have several dozens > of instances does *not* belong in -rc5; if nothing else, it guarantees > a nightmare pile of conflicts with individual filesystem trees. > > > I'm just saying that as a maintainer, you should use your brain and > > figure out how critical the bug is, how good is the fix and how well was > > it tested, and decide if you want to merge it in or not. > > > > If it fixed the bug and didn't introduce a regression, great! If it > > messed something else, you'd have some input on how to address it better > > in the future. > > > > I'm trying to come up with a tool/system to help maintainers with > > this task because right now it's not working too well. I'm not trying to > > introduce arbitrary rules to make your life miserable. > > And I am asking you what kind of rules do you want/expect/would prefer > for Fixes: pseudo-header. *I* do not give a flying fuck for its > contents; I can put it in, if there is a good reason, though. And > the obvious consumers of that thing are -stable maintainers. Including > yourself. Which is why I am asking you what should go in there in > situation described above. And no, that's not a rhetorical question; > I really want to know. > > Let me describe it again: > * a bunch of holes is found in a function; all of them go back > several years > * a clean fix for the whole pile is a composition of > 1) local fix of trivially triggered memory corruptor > 2) tree-wide mechanical change of method signature + matching modifications > of callers of that method (say, all five of them). > 3) further changes in the function in question and its caller (which happens > to be an instance of the method modified by (2). > * dependencies between parts: (1) is standalone, (3) has a hard > dependency on (2), (1) can be reordered past (2)+(modified 3), but > modifications > needed in (1) and (3) are not trivial. > * the crap fixed by (1) is much more severe than that fixed by (3) > (and (2) is an equivalent transformation which does not affect behaviour of > anything). > * too late in the cycle for tree-wide patches like (2). > > As far as I'm concerned (and if it makes -stable folks' lives unpleasant, > too fucking bad)
Don't care about me for stuff like this. Fix it correctly and I'll worry about any dependancy issues later :) greg k-h
