Re: [PATCH] EDAC/dmc520: Don't print an error for each unconfigured interrupt line

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc: Lei Wang <lewan@microsoft.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>,
	Shiping Ji <shiping.linux@gmail.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
	linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC/dmc520: Don't print an error for each unconfigured interrupt line
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:04:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YecrXidqecoYI/xg@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220118195401.GB89184@sequoia>

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 01:54:01PM -0600, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2022-01-18 18:28:16, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 09:28:16AM -0600, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > > KERN_ERR messages trip log scanners and cause concern that the
> > > kernel/hardware is not configured or working correctly. They also add a
> > > little big of ongoing stress into kernel maintainer's lives, as we
> > > prepare and test kernel updates, since they show up as red text in
> > > journalctl output that we have to think about regularly. Multiple
> > > KERN_ERR messages, 8 in this case, can also be considered a little worse
> > > than a single error message.
> > 
> > It sounds to me like you wanna read
> > 
> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> > 
> > first.
> 
> I'm familiar with it and the sort of commits that flow into stable.
> 
> > > I feel like this trivial fix is worth taking into stable rather than
> > > suppressing these errors (mentally and in log scanners) for years.
> > 
> > Years? 
> 
> Yes, years. v5.10 is supported through 2026.
> 
> > In any case, sorry, no, I don't consider this stable material.
> 
> The bar varies by subsystem maintainer but this wouldn't be the first
> logging fix that made it into a stable branch. From the linux-5.10.y
> branch of linux-stable:
> 
>  ddb13ddacc60 scsi: pm80xx: Fix misleading log statement in pm8001_mpi_get_nvmd_resp()
>  526261c1b706 amd/display: downgrade validation failure log level
>  9a3f52f73c04 bnxt_en: Improve logging of error recovery settings information.
>  5f7bda9ba8d7 leds: lm3697: Don't spam logs when probe is deferred
>  8b195380cd07 staging: fbtft: Don't spam logs when probe is deferred
>  ...

Well, lemme add the stable folks for comment then - they might have had
their reasons.

( Or Sasha's AI went nuts. Which I've witnessed a bunch of times
already.)

If I look at the stable-kernel-rules.rst file, the only rule that
*maybe*, *probably* applies here is

"- It must fix a real bug that bothers people"

But this one is formulated so broadly so that it makes me wanna ignore
it. Because *anything* can bother people - even spelling mistakes but
then a later rule says no spelling fixes.

Don't get me wrong - I don't mind having the stable tag where really
needed. But here it is questionable. And we have those stable rules for
a reason - if we start bending them and ignoring them then we might
just as well backport everything that applies and have parallel kernel
streams where the version means nothing. Basically a distro kernel. :-P

So let's see what the stable folks say first.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette