On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:55:25AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:05 AM Daniel Burgener dburgener@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
Yes, thank you. I will fix up the series with the third commit included, and add commit ids. Thanks.
Greg and I have different opinions on what is classified as a good candidate for the -stable trees, but in my opinion this patch series doesn't qualify. There are a lot of dependencies, it is intertwined with a lot of code, and the issue that this patchset fixes has been around for a *long* time. I personally feel the risk of backporting this to -stable does not outweigh the potential wins.
My understanding is that while the issue Daniel is fixing here has been around for a while, it's also very real - the reports suggest a failure rate of 1-2% on boot.
I do understand your concerns around this series, but given it was just fixed upstream we don't have a better story than "sit tight for the next LTS" to tell to users affected by this issue.
Is there a scenario where you'd feel safer with the series? I suspect that if it doesn't go into upstream stable Daniel will end up carrying it out of tree anyway, so maybe we can ask Daniel to do targetted testing for the next week or two and report back?