€•¿      Œsphinx.addnodes”Œdocument”“”)”}”(Œ	rawsource”Œ ”Œchildren”]”(Œtranslations”ŒLanguagesNode”“”)”}”(hhh]”(h Œpending_xref”“”)”}”(hhh]”Œdocutils.nodes”ŒText”“”ŒChinese (Simplified)”…””}”Œparent”hsbaŒ
attributes”}”(Œids”]”Œclasses”]”Œnames”]”Œdupnames”]”Œbackrefs”]”Œ	refdomain”Œstd”Œreftype”Œdoc”Œ	reftarget”Œ0/translations/zh_CN/process/handling-regressions”Œmodname”NŒ	classname”NŒrefexplicit”ˆuŒtagname”hhhubh)”}”(hhh]”hŒChinese (Traditional)”…””}”hh2sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œ	refdomain”h)Œreftype”h+Œ	reftarget”Œ0/translations/zh_TW/process/handling-regressions”Œmodname”NŒ	classname”NŒrefexplicit”ˆuh1hhhubh)”}”(hhh]”hŒItalian”…””}”hhFsbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œ	refdomain”h)Œreftype”h+Œ	reftarget”Œ0/translations/it_IT/process/handling-regressions”Œmodname”NŒ	classname”NŒrefexplicit”ˆuh1hhhubh)”}”(hhh]”hŒJapanese”…””}”hhZsbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œ	refdomain”h)Œreftype”h+Œ	reftarget”Œ0/translations/ja_JP/process/handling-regressions”Œmodname”NŒ	classname”NŒrefexplicit”ˆuh1hhhubh)”}”(hhh]”hŒKorean”…””}”hhnsbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œ	refdomain”h)Œreftype”h+Œ	reftarget”Œ0/translations/ko_KR/process/handling-regressions”Œmodname”NŒ	classname”NŒrefexplicit”ˆuh1hhhubh)”}”(hhh]”hŒSpanish”…””}”hh‚sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œ	refdomain”h)Œreftype”h+Œ	reftarget”Œ0/translations/sp_SP/process/handling-regressions”Œmodname”NŒ	classname”NŒrefexplicit”ˆuh1hhhubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œcurrent_language”ŒEnglish”uh1h
hhŒ	_document”hŒsource”NŒline”NubhŒcomment”“”)”}”(hŒ0SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)”h]”hŒ0SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)”…””}”hh£sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œ	xml:space”Œpreserve”uh1h¡hhhžhhŸŒJ/var/lib/git/docbuild/linux/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst”h Kubh¢)”}”(hŒFSee the bottom of this file for additional redistribution information.”h]”hŒFSee the bottom of this file for additional redistribution information.”…””}”hh´sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1h¡hhhžhhŸh³h KubhŒsection”“”)”}”(hhh]”(hŒtitle”“”)”}”(hŒHandling regressions”h]”hŒHandling regressions”…””}”(hhÉhžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhhÄhžhhŸh³h KubhŒ	paragraph”“”)”}”(hXV  *We don't cause regressions* -- this document describes what this "first rule of
Linux kernel development" means in practice for developers. It complements
Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, which covers the topic from a
user's point of view; if you never read that text, go and at least skim over it
before continuing here.”h]”(hŒemphasis”“”)”}”(hŒ*We don't cause regressions*”h]”hŒWe donâ€™t cause regressions”…””}”(hhßhžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÝhhÙubhX@   -- this document describes what this â€œfirst rule of
Linux kernel developmentâ€ means in practice for developers. It complements
Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, which covers the topic from a
userâ€™s point of view; if you never read that text, go and at least skim over it
before continuing here.”…””}”(hhÙhžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KhhÄhžhubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ$The important bits (aka "The TL;DR")”h]”hŒ(The important bits (aka â€œThe TL;DRâ€)”…””}”(hhúhžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhh÷hžhhŸh³h KubhŒenumerated_list”“”)”}”(hhh]”(hŒ	list_item”“”)”}”(hX˜  Ensure subscribers of the `regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_
(regressions@lists.linux.dev) quickly become aware of any new regression
report:

 * When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the
   loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list
   CCed.

 * Forward or bounce any reports submitted in bug trackers to the list.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒ¬Ensure subscribers of the `regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_
(regressions@lists.linux.dev) quickly become aware of any new regression
report:”h]”(hŒEnsure subscribers of the ”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh NubhŒ	reference”“”)”}”(hŒA`regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_”h]”hŒregression mailing list”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œregression mailing list”Œrefuri”Œ$https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/”uh1j  hj  ubhŒtarget”“”)”}”(hŒ' <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œregression-mailing-list”ah ]”h"]”Œregression mailing list”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j.  uh1j/  Œ
referenced”Khj  ubhŒ
(”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒregressions@lists.linux.dev”h]”hŒregressions@lists.linux.dev”…””}”(hjC  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œrefuri”Œ"mailto:regressions@lists.linux.dev”uh1j  hj  ubhŒ4) quickly become aware of any new regression
report:”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Khj  ubhŒblock_quote”“”)”}”(hŒæ* When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the
  loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list
  CCed.

* Forward or bounce any reports submitted in bug trackers to the list.
”h]”hŒbullet_list”“”)”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒ˜When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the
loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list
CCed.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ—When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the
loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list
CCed.”h]”hŒ›When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the
loop by immediately sending at least a brief â€œReply-allâ€ with the list
CCed.”…””}”(hjl  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Khjh  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hje  ubj  )”}”(hŒEForward or bounce any reports submitted in bug trackers to the list.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒDForward or bounce any reports submitted in bug trackers to the list.”h]”hŒDForward or bounce any reports submitted in bug trackers to the list.”…””}”(hj„  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Khj€  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hje  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œbullet”Œ*”uh1jc  hŸh³h Khj_  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h Khj  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj
  hžhhŸh³h Nubj  )”}”(hXÛ  Make the Linux kernel regression tracking bot "regzbot" track the issue (this
is optional, but recommended):

 * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ``#regzbot
   introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
   list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot
   when the issue started to happen::

    #regzbot ^introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a

 * When forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see
   above), include a paragraph like the following::

    #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
    #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
    #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒlMake the Linux kernel regression tracking bot "regzbot" track the issue (this
is optional, but recommended):”h]”hŒpMake the Linux kernel regression tracking bot â€œregzbotâ€ track the issue (this
is optional, but recommended):”…””}”(hj°  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Khj¬  ubj^  )”}”(hXc  * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ``#regzbot
  introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
  list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot
  when the issue started to happen::

   #regzbot ^introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a

* When forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see
  above), include a paragraph like the following::

   #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
   #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
   #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hX(  For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ``#regzbot
introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot
when the issue started to happen::

 #regzbot ^introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hX  For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ``#regzbot
introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot
when the issue started to happen::”h]”(hŒ?For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ”…””}”(hjÉ  hžhhŸNh NubhŒliteral”“”)”}”(hŒ)``#regzbot
introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1``”h]”hŒ%#regzbot
introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1”…””}”(hjÓ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jÑ  hjÉ  ubhŒ™. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot
when the issue started to happen:”…””}”(hjÉ  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KhjÅ  ubhŒliteral_block”“”)”}”(hŒ"#regzbot ^introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a”h]”hŒ"#regzbot ^introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a”…””}”hjí  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h K"hjÅ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÂ  ubj  )”}”(hX&  When forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see
above), include a paragraph like the following::

 #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
 #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
 #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒxWhen forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see
above), include a paragraph like the following::”h]”hŒwWhen forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see
above), include a paragraph like the following:”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K$hj  ubjì  )”}”(hŒ¨#regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
#regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
#regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789”h]”hŒ¨#regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
#regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
#regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789”…””}”hj  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h K'hj  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÂ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h Khj¾  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h Khj¬  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj
  hžhhŸh³h Nubj  )”}”(hX©  When submitting fixes for regressions, add "Closes:" tags to the patch
description pointing to all places where the issue was reported, as
mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
:ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`. If you are
only fixing part of the issue that caused the regression, you may use
"Link:" tags instead. regzbot currently makes no distinction between the
two.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX¨  When submitting fixes for regressions, add "Closes:" tags to the patch
description pointing to all places where the issue was reported, as
mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
:ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`. If you are
only fixing part of the issue that caused the regression, you may use
"Link:" tags instead. regzbot currently makes no distinction between the
two.”h]”(hŒÌWhen submitting fixes for regressions, add â€œCloses:â€ tags to the patch
description pointing to all places where the issue was reported, as
mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
”…””}”(hj=  hžhhŸNh Nubh)”}”(hŒ@:ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`”h]”hŒinline”“”)”}”(hjG  h]”hŒ#Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst”…””}”(hjK  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”(Œxref”Œstd”Œstd-ref”eh"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jI  hjE  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œrefdoc”Œprocess/handling-regressions”Œ	refdomain”jV  Œreftype”Œref”Œrefexplicit”ˆŒrefwarn”ˆŒ	reftarget”Œdevelopment_posting”uh1hhŸh³h K+hj=  ubhŒ¤. If you are
only fixing part of the issue that caused the regression, you may use
â€œLink:â€ tags instead. regzbot currently makes no distinction between the
two.”…””}”(hj=  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K+hj9  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj
  hžhhŸh³h Nubj  )”}”(hŒ»Try to fix regressions quickly once the culprit has been identified; fixes
for most regressions should be merged within two weeks, but some need to be
resolved within two or three days.

”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ¹Try to fix regressions quickly once the culprit has been identified; fixes
for most regressions should be merged within two weeks, but some need to be
resolved within two or three days.”h]”hŒ¹Try to fix regressions quickly once the culprit has been identified; fixes
for most regressions should be merged within two weeks, but some need to be
resolved within two or three days.”…””}”(hj~  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K3hjz  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj
  hžhhŸh³h Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œenumtype”Œarabic”Œprefix”hŒsuffix”Œ.”uh1j  hh÷hžhhŸh³h Kubeh}”(h]”Œ the-important-bits-aka-the-tl-dr”ah ]”h"]”Œ$the important bits (aka "the tl;dr")”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhhÄhžhhŸh³h KubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒCAll the details on Linux kernel regressions relevant for developers”h]”hŒCAll the details on Linux kernel regressions relevant for developers”…””}”(hj¨  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj¥  hžhhŸh³h K9ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ#The important basics in more detail”h]”hŒ#The important basics in more detail”…””}”(hj¹  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj¶  hžhhŸh³h K=ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ,What to do when receiving regression reports”h]”hŒ,What to do when receiving regression reports”…””}”(hjÊ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjÇ  hžhhŸh³h KAubhØ)”}”(hŒÙEnsure the Linux kernel's regression tracker and others subscribers of the
`regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_
(regressions@lists.linux.dev) become aware of any newly reported regression:”h]”(hŒMEnsure the Linux kernelâ€™s regression tracker and others subscribers of the
”…””}”(hjØ  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒA`regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_”h]”hŒregression mailing list”…””}”(hjà  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œregression mailing list”j-  Œ$https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/”uh1j  hjØ  ubj0  )”}”(hŒ' <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid1”ah ]”h"]”h$]”Œregression mailing list”ah&]”Œrefuri”jð  uh1j/  j>  KhjØ  ubhŒ
(”…””}”(hjØ  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒregressions@lists.linux.dev”h]”hŒregressions@lists.linux.dev”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œrefuri”Œ"mailto:regressions@lists.linux.dev”uh1j  hjØ  ubhŒ0) become aware of any newly reported regression:”…””}”(hjØ  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KChjÇ  hžhubj^  )”}”(hXù  * When you receive a report by mail that did not CC the list, immediately bring
  it into the loop by sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed;
  try to ensure it gets CCed again in case you reply to a reply that omitted
  the list.

* If a report submitted in a bug tracker hits your Inbox, forward or bounce it
  to the list. Consider checking the list archives beforehand, if the reporter
  already forwarded the report as instructed by
  Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒðWhen you receive a report by mail that did not CC the list, immediately bring
it into the loop by sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed;
try to ensure it gets CCed again in case you reply to a reply that omitted
the list.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒïWhen you receive a report by mail that did not CC the list, immediately bring
it into the loop by sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed;
try to ensure it gets CCed again in case you reply to a reply that omitted
the list.”h]”hŒóWhen you receive a report by mail that did not CC the list, immediately bring
it into the loop by sending at least a brief â€œReply-allâ€ with the list CCed;
try to ensure it gets CCed again in case you reply to a reply that omitted
the list.”…””}”(hj'  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KGhj#  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj   ubj  )”}”(hŒøIf a report submitted in a bug tracker hits your Inbox, forward or bounce it
to the list. Consider checking the list archives beforehand, if the reporter
already forwarded the report as instructed by
Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ÷If a report submitted in a bug tracker hits your Inbox, forward or bounce it
to the list. Consider checking the list archives beforehand, if the reporter
already forwarded the report as instructed by
Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.”h]”hŒ÷If a report submitted in a bug tracker hits your Inbox, forward or bounce it
to the list. Consider checking the list archives beforehand, if the reporter
already forwarded the report as instructed by
Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.”…””}”(hj?  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KLhj;  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj   ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h KGhj  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h KGhjÇ  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒ{When doing either, consider making the Linux kernel regression tracking bot
"regzbot" immediately start tracking the issue:”h]”hŒWhen doing either, consider making the Linux kernel regression tracking bot
â€œregzbotâ€ immediately start tracking the issue:”…””}”(hj_  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KQhjÇ  hžhubj^  )”}”(hXÎ  * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a "regzbot command" like
  ``#regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a``. If not, send a reply (with the
  regressions list in CC) with a paragraph like the following:::

      #regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1

  This tells regzbot the version range in which the issue started to happen;
  you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id
  in case the reporter bisected the culprit.

  Note the caret (^) before the "introduced": it tells regzbot to treat the
  parent mail (the one you reply to) as the initial report for the regression
  you want to see tracked; that's important, as regzbot will later look out
  for patches with "Closes:" tags pointing to the report in the archives on
  lore.kernel.org.

* When forwarding a regression reported to a bug tracker, include a paragraph
  with these regzbot commands::

      #regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a
      #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
      #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789

  Regzbot will then automatically associate patches with the report that
  contain "Closes:" tags pointing to your mail or the mentioned ticket.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hXý  For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a "regzbot command" like
``#regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a``. If not, send a reply (with the
regressions list in CC) with a paragraph like the following:::

    #regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1

This tells regzbot the version range in which the issue started to happen;
you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id
in case the reporter bisected the culprit.

Note the caret (^) before the "introduced": it tells regzbot to treat the
parent mail (the one you reply to) as the initial report for the regression
you want to see tracked; that's important, as regzbot will later look out
for patches with "Closes:" tags pointing to the report in the archives on
lore.kernel.org.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒÐFor mailed reports, check if the reporter included a "regzbot command" like
``#regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a``. If not, send a reply (with the
regressions list in CC) with a paragraph like the following:::”h]”(hŒPFor mailed reports, check if the reporter included a â€œregzbot commandâ€ like
”…””}”(hjx  hžhhŸNh NubjÒ  )”}”(hŒ%``#regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a``”h]”hŒ!#regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a”…””}”(hj€  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jÑ  hjx  ubhŒ^. If not, send a reply (with the
regressions list in CC) with a paragraph like the following::”…””}”(hjx  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KThjt  ubjì  )”}”(hŒ&#regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1”h]”hŒ&#regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1”…””}”hj˜  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h KXhjt  ubhØ)”}”(hŒÂThis tells regzbot the version range in which the issue started to happen;
you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id
in case the reporter bisected the culprit.”h]”hŒÂThis tells regzbot the version range in which the issue started to happen;
you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id
in case the reporter bisected the culprit.”…””}”(hj¦  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KZhjt  ubhØ)”}”(hX:  Note the caret (^) before the "introduced": it tells regzbot to treat the
parent mail (the one you reply to) as the initial report for the regression
you want to see tracked; that's important, as regzbot will later look out
for patches with "Closes:" tags pointing to the report in the archives on
lore.kernel.org.”h]”hXD  Note the caret (^) before the â€œintroducedâ€: it tells regzbot to treat the
parent mail (the one you reply to) as the initial report for the regression
you want to see tracked; thatâ€™s important, as regzbot will later look out
for patches with â€œCloses:â€ tags pointing to the report in the archives on
lore.kernel.org.”…””}”(hj´  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K^hjt  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjq  ubj  )”}”(hXª  When forwarding a regression reported to a bug tracker, include a paragraph
with these regzbot commands::

    #regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a
    #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
    #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789

Regzbot will then automatically associate patches with the report that
contain "Closes:" tags pointing to your mail or the mentioned ticket.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒiWhen forwarding a regression reported to a bug tracker, include a paragraph
with these regzbot commands::”h]”hŒhWhen forwarding a regression reported to a bug tracker, include a paragraph
with these regzbot commands:”…””}”(hjÌ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KdhjÈ  ubjì  )”}”(hŒ¤#regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a
#regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
#regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789”h]”hŒ¤#regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a
#regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
#regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789”…””}”hjÚ  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h KghjÈ  ubhØ)”}”(hŒŒRegzbot will then automatically associate patches with the report that
contain "Closes:" tags pointing to your mail or the mentioned ticket.”h]”hŒRegzbot will then automatically associate patches with the report that
contain â€œCloses:â€ tags pointing to your mail or the mentioned ticket.”…””}”(hjè  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KkhjÈ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjq  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h KThjm  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h KThjÇ  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ,what-to-do-when-receiving-regression-reports”ah ]”h"]”Œ,what to do when receiving regression reports”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj¶  hžhhŸh³h KAubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ(What's important when fixing regressions”h]”hŒ*Whatâ€™s important when fixing regressions”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj  hžhhŸh³h KoubhØ)”}”(hX&  You don't need to do anything special when submitting fixes for regression, just
remember to do what Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
:ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`, and
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst already explain in more detail:”h]”(hŒ•You donâ€™t need to do anything special when submitting fixes for regression, just
remember to do what Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
”…””}”(hj!  hžhhŸNh Nubh)”}”(hŒ@:ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`”h]”jJ  )”}”(hj+  h]”hŒ#Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst”…””}”(hj-  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”(jU  Œstd”Œstd-ref”eh"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jI  hj)  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œrefdoc”jb  Œ	refdomain”j7  Œreftype”Œref”Œrefexplicit”ˆŒrefwarn”ˆjh  Œdevelopment_posting”uh1hhŸh³h Kqhj!  ubhŒS, and
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst already explain in more detail:”…””}”(hj!  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kqhj  hžhubj^  )”}”(hX¡  * Point to all places where the issue was reported using "Closes:" tags::

      Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
      Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890

  If you are only fixing part of the issue, you may use "Link:" instead as
  described in the first document mentioned above. regzbot currently treats
  both of these equivalently and considers the linked reports as resolved.

* Add a "Fixes:" tag to specify the commit causing the regression.

* If the culprit was merged in an earlier development cycle, explicitly mark
  the fix for backporting using the ``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tag.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hX»  Point to all places where the issue was reported using "Closes:" tags::

    Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
    Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890

If you are only fixing part of the issue, you may use "Link:" instead as
described in the first document mentioned above. regzbot currently treats
both of these equivalently and considers the linked reports as resolved.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒGPoint to all places where the issue was reported using "Closes:" tags::”h]”hŒJPoint to all places where the issue was reported using â€œCloses:â€ tags:”…””}”(hj^  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KvhjZ  ubjì  )”}”(hŒŒCloses: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890”h]”hŒŒCloses: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890”…””}”hjl  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h KxhjZ  ubhØ)”}”(hŒÛIf you are only fixing part of the issue, you may use "Link:" instead as
described in the first document mentioned above. regzbot currently treats
both of these equivalently and considers the linked reports as resolved.”h]”hŒßIf you are only fixing part of the issue, you may use â€œLink:â€ instead as
described in the first document mentioned above. regzbot currently treats
both of these equivalently and considers the linked reports as resolved.”…””}”(hjz  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K{hjZ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjW  ubj  )”}”(hŒAAdd a "Fixes:" tag to specify the commit causing the regression.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ@Add a "Fixes:" tag to specify the commit causing the regression.”h]”hŒDAdd a â€œFixes:â€ tag to specify the commit causing the regression.”…””}”(hj’  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KhjŽ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjW  ubj  )”}”(hŒ‘If the culprit was merged in an earlier development cycle, explicitly mark
the fix for backporting using the ``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tag.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒIf the culprit was merged in an earlier development cycle, explicitly mark
the fix for backporting using the ``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tag.”h]”(hŒmIf the culprit was merged in an earlier development cycle, explicitly mark
the fix for backporting using the ”…””}”(hjª  hžhhŸNh NubjÒ  )”}”(hŒ``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org``”h]”hŒCc: stable@vger.kernel.org”…””}”(hj²  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jÑ  hjª  ubhŒ tag.”…””}”(hjª  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Khj¦  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjW  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h KvhjS  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h Kvhj  hžhubhØ)”}”(hX¾  All this is expected from you and important when it comes to regression, as
these tags are of great value for everyone (you included) that might be looking
into the issue weeks, months, or years later. These tags are also crucial for
tools and scripts used by other kernel developers or Linux distributions; one of
these tools is regzbot, which heavily relies on the "Closes:" tags to associate
reports for regression with changes resolving them.”h]”hXÂ  All this is expected from you and important when it comes to regression, as
these tags are of great value for everyone (you included) that might be looking
into the issue weeks, months, or years later. These tags are also crucial for
tools and scripts used by other kernel developers or Linux distributions; one of
these tools is regzbot, which heavily relies on the â€œCloses:â€ tags to associate
reports for regression with changes resolving them.”…””}”(hjÜ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K„hj  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ(what-s-important-when-fixing-regressions”ah ]”h"]”Œ(what's important when fixing regressions”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj¶  hžhhŸh³h KoubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ6Expectations and best practices for fixing regressions”h]”hŒ6Expectations and best practices for fixing regressions”…””}”(hjõ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjò  hžhhŸh³h KŒubhØ)”}”(hŒ¬As a Linux kernel developer, you are expected to give your best to prevent
situations where a regression caused by a recent change of yours leaves users
only these options:”h]”hŒ¬As a Linux kernel developer, you are expected to give your best to prevent
situations where a regression caused by a recent change of yours leaves users
only these options:”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KŽhjò  hžhubj^  )”}”(hX¡  * Run a kernel with a regression that impacts usage.

* Switch to an older or newer kernel series.

* Continue running an outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel for more
  than three weeks after the regression's culprit was identified. Ideally it
  should be less than two. And it ought to be just a few days, if the issue is
  severe or affects many users -- either in general or in prevalent
  environments.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒ3Run a kernel with a regression that impacts usage.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ2Run a kernel with a regression that impacts usage.”h]”hŒ2Run a kernel with a regression that impacts usage.”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K’hj  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj  ubj  )”}”(hŒ+Switch to an older or newer kernel series.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ*Switch to an older or newer kernel series.”h]”hŒ*Switch to an older or newer kernel series.”…””}”(hj4  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K”hj0  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj  ubj  )”}”(hX3  Continue running an outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel for more
than three weeks after the regression's culprit was identified. Ideally it
should be less than two. And it ought to be just a few days, if the issue is
severe or affects many users -- either in general or in prevalent
environments.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX2  Continue running an outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel for more
than three weeks after the regression's culprit was identified. Ideally it
should be less than two. And it ought to be just a few days, if the issue is
severe or affects many users -- either in general or in prevalent
environments.”h]”hX4  Continue running an outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel for more
than three weeks after the regressionâ€™s culprit was identified. Ideally it
should be less than two. And it ought to be just a few days, if the issue is
severe or affects many users -- either in general or in prevalent
environments.”…””}”(hjL  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K–hjH  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h K’hj  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h K’hjò  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒhHow to realize that in practice depends on various factors. Use the following
rules of thumb as a guide.”h]”hŒhHow to realize that in practice depends on various factors. Use the following
rules of thumb as a guide.”…””}”(hjl  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kœhjò  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒIn general:”h]”hŒIn general:”…””}”(hjz  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KŸhjò  hžhubj^  )”}”(hX³  * Prioritize work on regressions over all other Linux kernel work, unless the
  latter concerns a severe issue (e.g. acute security vulnerability, data loss,
  bricked hardware, ...).

* Expedite fixing mainline regressions that recently made it into a proper
  mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via backport).

* Do not consider regressions from the current cycle as something that can wait
  till the end of the cycle, as the issue might discourage or prevent users and
  CI systems from testing mainline now or generally.

* Work with the required care to avoid additional or bigger damage, even if
  resolving an issue then might take longer than outlined below.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒ²Prioritize work on regressions over all other Linux kernel work, unless the
latter concerns a severe issue (e.g. acute security vulnerability, data loss,
bricked hardware, ...).
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ±Prioritize work on regressions over all other Linux kernel work, unless the
latter concerns a severe issue (e.g. acute security vulnerability, data loss,
bricked hardware, ...).”h]”hŒ±Prioritize work on regressions over all other Linux kernel work, unless the
latter concerns a severe issue (e.g. acute security vulnerability, data loss,
bricked hardware, ...).”…””}”(hj“  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K¡hj  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŒ  ubj  )”}”(hŒ’Expedite fixing mainline regressions that recently made it into a proper
mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via backport).
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ‘Expedite fixing mainline regressions that recently made it into a proper
mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via backport).”h]”hŒ‘Expedite fixing mainline regressions that recently made it into a proper
mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via backport).”…””}”(hj«  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K¥hj§  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŒ  ubj  )”}”(hŒÏDo not consider regressions from the current cycle as something that can wait
till the end of the cycle, as the issue might discourage or prevent users and
CI systems from testing mainline now or generally.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒÎDo not consider regressions from the current cycle as something that can wait
till the end of the cycle, as the issue might discourage or prevent users and
CI systems from testing mainline now or generally.”h]”hŒÎDo not consider regressions from the current cycle as something that can wait
till the end of the cycle, as the issue might discourage or prevent users and
CI systems from testing mainline now or generally.”…””}”(hjÃ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K¨hj¿  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŒ  ubj  )”}”(hŒ‰Work with the required care to avoid additional or bigger damage, even if
resolving an issue then might take longer than outlined below.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒˆWork with the required care to avoid additional or bigger damage, even if
resolving an issue then might take longer than outlined below.”h]”hŒˆWork with the required care to avoid additional or bigger damage, even if
resolving an issue then might take longer than outlined below.”…””}”(hjÛ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K¬hj×  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŒ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h K¡hjˆ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h K¡hjò  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒ4On timing once the culprit of a regression is known:”h]”hŒ4On timing once the culprit of a regression is known:”…””}”(hjû  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K¯hjò  hžhubj^  )”}”(hXÑ  * Aim to mainline a fix within two or three days, if the issue is severe or
  bothering many users -- either in general or in prevalent conditions like a
  particular hardware environment, distribution, or stable/longterm series.

* Aim to mainline a fix by Sunday after the next, if the culprit made it
  into a recent mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via
  backport); if the culprit became known early during a week and is simple to
  resolve, try to mainline the fix within the same week.

* For other regressions, aim to mainline fixes before the hindmost Sunday
  within the next three weeks. One or two Sundays later are acceptable, if the
  regression is something people can live with easily for a while -- like a
  mild performance regression.

* It's strongly discouraged to delay mainlining regression fixes till the next
  merge window, except when the fix is extraordinarily risky or when the
  culprit was mainlined more than a year ago.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒàAim to mainline a fix within two or three days, if the issue is severe or
bothering many users -- either in general or in prevalent conditions like a
particular hardware environment, distribution, or stable/longterm series.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒßAim to mainline a fix within two or three days, if the issue is severe or
bothering many users -- either in general or in prevalent conditions like a
particular hardware environment, distribution, or stable/longterm series.”h]”hŒßAim to mainline a fix within two or three days, if the issue is severe or
bothering many users -- either in general or in prevalent conditions like a
particular hardware environment, distribution, or stable/longterm series.”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K±hj  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj  ubj  )”}”(hX  Aim to mainline a fix by Sunday after the next, if the culprit made it
into a recent mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via
backport); if the culprit became known early during a week and is simple to
resolve, try to mainline the fix within the same week.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX  Aim to mainline a fix by Sunday after the next, if the culprit made it
into a recent mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via
backport); if the culprit became known early during a week and is simple to
resolve, try to mainline the fix within the same week.”h]”hX  Aim to mainline a fix by Sunday after the next, if the culprit made it
into a recent mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via
backport); if the culprit became known early during a week and is simple to
resolve, try to mainline the fix within the same week.”…””}”(hj,  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kµhj(  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj  ubj  )”}”(hŒüFor other regressions, aim to mainline fixes before the hindmost Sunday
within the next three weeks. One or two Sundays later are acceptable, if the
regression is something people can live with easily for a while -- like a
mild performance regression.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒûFor other regressions, aim to mainline fixes before the hindmost Sunday
within the next three weeks. One or two Sundays later are acceptable, if the
regression is something people can live with easily for a while -- like a
mild performance regression.”h]”hŒûFor other regressions, aim to mainline fixes before the hindmost Sunday
within the next three weeks. One or two Sundays later are acceptable, if the
regression is something people can live with easily for a while -- like a
mild performance regression.”…””}”(hjD  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kºhj@  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj  ubj  )”}”(hŒÀIt's strongly discouraged to delay mainlining regression fixes till the next
merge window, except when the fix is extraordinarily risky or when the
culprit was mainlined more than a year ago.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ¿It's strongly discouraged to delay mainlining regression fixes till the next
merge window, except when the fix is extraordinarily risky or when the
culprit was mainlined more than a year ago.”h]”hŒÁItâ€™s strongly discouraged to delay mainlining regression fixes till the next
merge window, except when the fix is extraordinarily risky or when the
culprit was mainlined more than a year ago.”…””}”(hj\  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h K¿hjX  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h K±hj	  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h K±hjò  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒOn procedure:”h]”hŒOn procedure:”…””}”(hj|  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KÃhjò  hžhubj^  )”}”(hX  * Always consider reverting the culprit, as it's often the quickest and least
  dangerous way to fix a regression. Don't worry about mainlining a fixed
  variant later: that should be straight-forward, as most of the code went
  through review once already.

* Try to resolve any regressions introduced in mainline during the past
  twelve months before the current development cycle ends: Linus wants such
  regressions to be handled like those from the current cycle, unless fixing
  bears unusual risks.

* Consider CCing Linus on discussions or patch review, if a regression seems
  tangly. Do the same in precarious or urgent cases -- especially if the
  subsystem maintainer might be unavailable. Also CC the stable team, when you
  know such a regression made it into a mainline, stable, or longterm release.

* For urgent regressions, consider asking Linus to pick up the fix straight
  from the mailing list: he is totally fine with that for uncontroversial
  fixes. Ideally though such requests should happen in accordance with the
  subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.

* In case you are unsure if a fix is worth the risk applying just days before
  a new mainline release, send Linus a mail with the usual lists and people in
  CC; in it, summarize the situation while asking him to consider picking up
  the fix straight from the list. He then himself can make the call and when
  needed even postpone the release. Such requests again should ideally happen
  in accordance with the subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒúAlways consider reverting the culprit, as it's often the quickest and least
dangerous way to fix a regression. Don't worry about mainlining a fixed
variant later: that should be straight-forward, as most of the code went
through review once already.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒùAlways consider reverting the culprit, as it's often the quickest and least
dangerous way to fix a regression. Don't worry about mainlining a fixed
variant later: that should be straight-forward, as most of the code went
through review once already.”h]”hŒýAlways consider reverting the culprit, as itâ€™s often the quickest and least
dangerous way to fix a regression. Donâ€™t worry about mainlining a fixed
variant later: that should be straight-forward, as most of the code went
through review once already.”…””}”(hj•  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KÅhj‘  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŽ  ubj  )”}”(hŒðTry to resolve any regressions introduced in mainline during the past
twelve months before the current development cycle ends: Linus wants such
regressions to be handled like those from the current cycle, unless fixing
bears unusual risks.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒïTry to resolve any regressions introduced in mainline during the past
twelve months before the current development cycle ends: Linus wants such
regressions to be handled like those from the current cycle, unless fixing
bears unusual risks.”h]”hŒïTry to resolve any regressions introduced in mainline during the past
twelve months before the current development cycle ends: Linus wants such
regressions to be handled like those from the current cycle, unless fixing
bears unusual risks.”…””}”(hj­  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KÊhj©  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŽ  ubj  )”}”(hX,  Consider CCing Linus on discussions or patch review, if a regression seems
tangly. Do the same in precarious or urgent cases -- especially if the
subsystem maintainer might be unavailable. Also CC the stable team, when you
know such a regression made it into a mainline, stable, or longterm release.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX+  Consider CCing Linus on discussions or patch review, if a regression seems
tangly. Do the same in precarious or urgent cases -- especially if the
subsystem maintainer might be unavailable. Also CC the stable team, when you
know such a regression made it into a mainline, stable, or longterm release.”h]”hX+  Consider CCing Linus on discussions or patch review, if a regression seems
tangly. Do the same in precarious or urgent cases -- especially if the
subsystem maintainer might be unavailable. Also CC the stable team, when you
know such a regression made it into a mainline, stable, or longterm release.”…””}”(hjÅ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KÏhjÁ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŽ  ubj  )”}”(hX  For urgent regressions, consider asking Linus to pick up the fix straight
from the mailing list: he is totally fine with that for uncontroversial
fixes. Ideally though such requests should happen in accordance with the
subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX  For urgent regressions, consider asking Linus to pick up the fix straight
from the mailing list: he is totally fine with that for uncontroversial
fixes. Ideally though such requests should happen in accordance with the
subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.”h]”hX  For urgent regressions, consider asking Linus to pick up the fix straight
from the mailing list: he is totally fine with that for uncontroversial
fixes. Ideally though such requests should happen in accordance with the
subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.”…””}”(hjÝ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KÔhjÙ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŽ  ubj  )”}”(hXÄ  In case you are unsure if a fix is worth the risk applying just days before
a new mainline release, send Linus a mail with the usual lists and people in
CC; in it, summarize the situation while asking him to consider picking up
the fix straight from the list. He then himself can make the call and when
needed even postpone the release. Such requests again should ideally happen
in accordance with the subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hXÃ  In case you are unsure if a fix is worth the risk applying just days before
a new mainline release, send Linus a mail with the usual lists and people in
CC; in it, summarize the situation while asking him to consider picking up
the fix straight from the list. He then himself can make the call and when
needed even postpone the release. Such requests again should ideally happen
in accordance with the subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.”h]”hXÃ  In case you are unsure if a fix is worth the risk applying just days before
a new mainline release, send Linus a mail with the usual lists and people in
CC; in it, summarize the situation while asking him to consider picking up
the fix straight from the list. He then himself can make the call and when
needed even postpone the release. Such requests again should ideally happen
in accordance with the subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.”…””}”(hjõ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KÙhjñ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjŽ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h KÅhjŠ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h KÅhjò  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒ&Regarding stable and longterm kernels:”h]”hŒ&Regarding stable and longterm kernels:”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kàhjò  hžhubj^  )”}”(hXf  * You are free to leave regressions to the stable team, if they at no point in
  time occurred with mainline or were fixed there already.

* If a regression made it into a proper mainline release during the past
  twelve months, ensure to tag the fix with "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org", as a
  "Fixes:" tag alone does not guarantee a backport. Please add the same tag,
  in case you know the culprit was backported to stable or longterm kernels.

* When receiving reports about regressions in recent stable or longterm kernel
  series, please evaluate at least briefly if the issue might happen in current
  mainline as well -- and if that seems likely, take hold of the report. If in
  doubt, ask the reporter to check mainline.

* Whenever you want to swiftly resolve a regression that recently also made it
  into a proper mainline, stable, or longterm release, fix it quickly in
  mainline; when appropriate thus involve Linus to fast-track the fix (see
  above). That's because the stable team normally does neither revert nor fix
  any changes that cause the same problems in mainline.

* In case of urgent regression fixes you might want to ensure prompt
  backporting by dropping the stable team a note once the fix was mainlined;
  this is especially advisable during merge windows and shortly thereafter, as
  the fix otherwise might land at the end of a huge patch queue.
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒ†You are free to leave regressions to the stable team, if they at no point in
time occurred with mainline or were fixed there already.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ…You are free to leave regressions to the stable team, if they at no point in
time occurred with mainline or were fixed there already.”h]”hŒ…You are free to leave regressions to the stable team, if they at no point in
time occurred with mainline or were fixed there already.”…””}”(hj.  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kâhj*  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj'  ubj  )”}”(hX*  If a regression made it into a proper mainline release during the past
twelve months, ensure to tag the fix with "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org", as a
"Fixes:" tag alone does not guarantee a backport. Please add the same tag,
in case you know the culprit was backported to stable or longterm kernels.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX)  If a regression made it into a proper mainline release during the past
twelve months, ensure to tag the fix with "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org", as a
"Fixes:" tag alone does not guarantee a backport. Please add the same tag,
in case you know the culprit was backported to stable or longterm kernels.”h]”(hŒxIf a regression made it into a proper mainline release during the past
twelve months, ensure to tag the fix with â€œCc: ”…””}”(hjF  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒstable@vger.kernel.org”h]”hŒstable@vger.kernel.org”…””}”(hjN  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œrefuri”Œmailto:stable@vger.kernel.org”uh1j  hjF  ubhŒ£â€, as a
â€œFixes:â€ tag alone does not guarantee a backport. Please add the same tag,
in case you know the culprit was backported to stable or longterm kernels.”…””}”(hjF  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h KåhjB  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj'  ubj  )”}”(hX  When receiving reports about regressions in recent stable or longterm kernel
series, please evaluate at least briefly if the issue might happen in current
mainline as well -- and if that seems likely, take hold of the report. If in
doubt, ask the reporter to check mainline.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX  When receiving reports about regressions in recent stable or longterm kernel
series, please evaluate at least briefly if the issue might happen in current
mainline as well -- and if that seems likely, take hold of the report. If in
doubt, ask the reporter to check mainline.”h]”hX  When receiving reports about regressions in recent stable or longterm kernel
series, please evaluate at least briefly if the issue might happen in current
mainline as well -- and if that seems likely, take hold of the report. If in
doubt, ask the reporter to check mainline.”…””}”(hjr  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kêhjn  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj'  ubj  )”}”(hX_  Whenever you want to swiftly resolve a regression that recently also made it
into a proper mainline, stable, or longterm release, fix it quickly in
mainline; when appropriate thus involve Linus to fast-track the fix (see
above). That's because the stable team normally does neither revert nor fix
any changes that cause the same problems in mainline.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX^  Whenever you want to swiftly resolve a regression that recently also made it
into a proper mainline, stable, or longterm release, fix it quickly in
mainline; when appropriate thus involve Linus to fast-track the fix (see
above). That's because the stable team normally does neither revert nor fix
any changes that cause the same problems in mainline.”h]”hX`  Whenever you want to swiftly resolve a regression that recently also made it
into a proper mainline, stable, or longterm release, fix it quickly in
mainline; when appropriate thus involve Linus to fast-track the fix (see
above). Thatâ€™s because the stable team normally does neither revert nor fix
any changes that cause the same problems in mainline.”…””}”(hjŠ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kïhj†  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj'  ubj  )”}”(hX  In case of urgent regression fixes you might want to ensure prompt
backporting by dropping the stable team a note once the fix was mainlined;
this is especially advisable during merge windows and shortly thereafter, as
the fix otherwise might land at the end of a huge patch queue.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX  In case of urgent regression fixes you might want to ensure prompt
backporting by dropping the stable team a note once the fix was mainlined;
this is especially advisable during merge windows and shortly thereafter, as
the fix otherwise might land at the end of a huge patch queue.”h]”hX  In case of urgent regression fixes you might want to ensure prompt
backporting by dropping the stable team a note once the fix was mainlined;
this is especially advisable during merge windows and shortly thereafter, as
the fix otherwise might land at the end of a huge patch queue.”…””}”(hj¢  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kõhjž  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj'  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h Kâhj#  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h Kâhjò  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒOn patch flow:”h]”hŒOn patch flow:”…””}”(hjÂ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kúhjò  hžhubj^  )”}”(hXD  * Developers, when trying to reach the time periods mentioned above, remember
  to account for the time it takes to get fixes tested, reviewed, and merged by
  Linus, ideally with them being in linux-next at least briefly. Hence, if a
  fix is urgent, make it obvious to ensure others handle it appropriately.

* Reviewers, you are kindly asked to assist developers in reaching the time
  periods mentioned above by reviewing regression fixes in a timely manner.

* Subsystem maintainers, you likewise are encouraged to expedite the handling
  of regression fixes. Thus evaluate if skipping linux-next is an option for
  the particular fix. Also consider sending git pull requests more often than
  usual when needed. And try to avoid holding onto regression fixes over
  weekends -- especially when the fix is marked for backporting.

”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hX.  Developers, when trying to reach the time periods mentioned above, remember
to account for the time it takes to get fixes tested, reviewed, and merged by
Linus, ideally with them being in linux-next at least briefly. Hence, if a
fix is urgent, make it obvious to ensure others handle it appropriately.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hX-  Developers, when trying to reach the time periods mentioned above, remember
to account for the time it takes to get fixes tested, reviewed, and merged by
Linus, ideally with them being in linux-next at least briefly. Hence, if a
fix is urgent, make it obvious to ensure others handle it appropriately.”h]”hX-  Developers, when trying to reach the time periods mentioned above, remember
to account for the time it takes to get fixes tested, reviewed, and merged by
Linus, ideally with them being in linux-next at least briefly. Hence, if a
fix is urgent, make it obvious to ensure others handle it appropriately.”…””}”(hjÛ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Kühj×  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÔ  ubj  )”}”(hŒ”Reviewers, you are kindly asked to assist developers in reaching the time
periods mentioned above by reviewing regression fixes in a timely manner.
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ“Reviewers, you are kindly asked to assist developers in reaching the time
periods mentioned above by reviewing regression fixes in a timely manner.”h]”hŒ“Reviewers, you are kindly asked to assist developers in reaching the time
periods mentioned above by reviewing regression fixes in a timely manner.”…””}”(hjó  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Mhjï  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÔ  ubj  )”}”(hXj  Subsystem maintainers, you likewise are encouraged to expedite the handling
of regression fixes. Thus evaluate if skipping linux-next is an option for
the particular fix. Also consider sending git pull requests more often than
usual when needed. And try to avoid holding onto regression fixes over
weekends -- especially when the fix is marked for backporting.

”h]”hØ)”}”(hXh  Subsystem maintainers, you likewise are encouraged to expedite the handling
of regression fixes. Thus evaluate if skipping linux-next is an option for
the particular fix. Also consider sending git pull requests more often than
usual when needed. And try to avoid holding onto regression fixes over
weekends -- especially when the fix is marked for backporting.”h]”hXh  Subsystem maintainers, you likewise are encouraged to expedite the handling
of regression fixes. Thus evaluate if skipping linux-next is an option for
the particular fix. Also consider sending git pull requests more often than
usual when needed. And try to avoid holding onto regression fixes over
weekends -- especially when the fix is marked for backporting.”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Mhj  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÔ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h KühjÐ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h Kühjò  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ6expectations-and-best-practices-for-fixing-regressions”ah ]”h"]”Œ6expectations and best practices for fixing regressions”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj¶  hžhhŸh³h KŒubeh}”(h]”Œ#the-important-basics-in-more-detail”ah ]”h"]”Œ#the important basics in more detail”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj¥  hžhhŸh³h K=ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ@More aspects regarding regressions developers should be aware of”h]”hŒ@More aspects regarding regressions developers should be aware of”…””}”(hj>  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj;  hžhhŸh³h MubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ<How to deal with changes where a risk of regression is known”h]”hŒ<How to deal with changes where a risk of regression is known”…””}”(hjO  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjL  hžhhŸh³h MubhØ)”}”(hX;  Evaluate how big the risk of regressions is, for example by performing a code
search in Linux distributions and Git forges. Also consider asking other
developers or projects likely to be affected to evaluate or even test the
proposed change; if problems surface, maybe some solution acceptable for all
can be found.”h]”hX;  Evaluate how big the risk of regressions is, for example by performing a code
search in Linux distributions and Git forges. Also consider asking other
developers or projects likely to be affected to evaluate or even test the
proposed change; if problems surface, maybe some solution acceptable for all
can be found.”…””}”(hj]  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MhjL  hžhubhØ)”}”(hX  If the risk of regressions in the end seems to be relatively small, go ahead
with the change, but let all involved parties know about the risk. Hence, make
sure your patch description makes this aspect obvious. Once the change is
merged, tell the Linux kernel's regression tracker and the regressions mailing
list about the risk, so everyone has the change on the radar in case reports
trickle in. Depending on the risk, you also might want to ask the subsystem
maintainer to mention the issue in his mainline pull request.”h]”hX  If the risk of regressions in the end seems to be relatively small, go ahead
with the change, but let all involved parties know about the risk. Hence, make
sure your patch description makes this aspect obvious. Once the change is
merged, tell the Linux kernelâ€™s regression tracker and the regressions mailing
list about the risk, so everyone has the change on the radar in case reports
trickle in. Depending on the risk, you also might want to ask the subsystem
maintainer to mention the issue in his mainline pull request.”…””}”(hjk  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MhjL  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ<how-to-deal-with-changes-where-a-risk-of-regression-is-known”ah ]”h"]”Œ<how to deal with changes where a risk of regression is known”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj;  hžhhŸh³h MubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ.What else is there to known about regressions?”h]”hŒ.What else is there to known about regressions?”…””}”(hj„  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj  hžhhŸh³h M!ubhØ)”}”(hŒƒCheck out Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, it covers a lot
of other aspects you want might want to be aware of:”h]”hŒƒCheck out Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, it covers a lot
of other aspects you want might want to be aware of:”…””}”(hj’  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M#hj  hžhubj^  )”}”(hX$  * the purpose of the "no regressions" rule

* what issues actually qualify as regression

* who's in charge for finding the root cause of a regression

* how to handle tricky situations, e.g. when a regression is caused by a
  security fix or when fixing a regression might cause another one
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒ)the purpose of the "no regressions" rule
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ(the purpose of the "no regressions" rule”h]”hŒ,the purpose of the â€œno regressionsâ€ rule”…””}”(hj«  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M&hj§  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj¤  ubj  )”}”(hŒ+what issues actually qualify as regression
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ*what issues actually qualify as regression”h]”hŒ*what issues actually qualify as regression”…””}”(hjÃ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M(hj¿  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj¤  ubj  )”}”(hŒ;who's in charge for finding the root cause of a regression
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ:who's in charge for finding the root cause of a regression”h]”hŒ<whoâ€™s in charge for finding the root cause of a regression”…””}”(hjÛ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M*hj×  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj¤  ubj  )”}”(hŒˆhow to handle tricky situations, e.g. when a regression is caused by a
security fix or when fixing a regression might cause another one
”h]”hØ)”}”(hŒ‡how to handle tricky situations, e.g. when a regression is caused by a
security fix or when fixing a regression might cause another one”h]”hŒ‡how to handle tricky situations, e.g. when a regression is caused by a
security fix or when fixing a regression might cause another one”…””}”(hjó  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M,hjï  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj¤  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h M&hj   ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h M&hj  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ-what-else-is-there-to-known-about-regressions”ah ]”h"]”Œ.what else is there to known about regressions?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj;  hžhhŸh³h M!ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ3Whom to ask for advice when it comes to regressions”h]”hŒ3Whom to ask for advice when it comes to regressions”…””}”(hj	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj	  hžhhŸh³h M0ubhØ)”}”(hŒèSend a mail to the regressions mailing list (regressions@lists.linux.dev) while
CCing the Linux kernel's regression tracker (regressions@leemhuis.info); if the
issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list.”•     h]”(hŒ-Send a mail to the regressions mailing list (”…””}”(hj,	  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒregressions@lists.linux.dev”h]”hŒregressions@lists.linux.dev”…””}”(hj4	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œrefuri”Œ"mailto:regressions@lists.linux.dev”uh1j  hj,	  ubhŒ7) while
CCing the Linux kernelâ€™s regression tracker (”…””}”(hj,	  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒregressions@leemhuis.info”h]”hŒregressions@leemhuis.info”…””}”(hjH	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œrefuri”Œ mailto:regressions@leemhuis.info”uh1j  hj,	  ubhŒR); if the
issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list.”…””}”(hj,	  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M2hj	  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ3whom-to-ask-for-advice-when-it-comes-to-regressions”ah ]”h"]”Œ3whom to ask for advice when it comes to regressions”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj;  hžhhŸh³h M0ubeh}”(h]”Œ@more-aspects-regarding-regressions-developers-should-be-aware-of”ah ]”h"]”Œ@more aspects regarding regressions developers should be aware of”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj¥  hžhhŸh³h MubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ*More about regression tracking and regzbot”h]”hŒ*More about regression tracking and regzbot”…””}”(hju	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjr	  hžhhŸh³h M8ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒGWhy the Linux kernel has a regression tracker, and why is regzbot used?”h]”hŒGWhy the Linux kernel has a regression tracker, and why is regzbot used?”…””}”(hj†	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjƒ	  hžhhŸh³h M<ubhØ)”}”(hX½  Rules like "no regressions" need someone to ensure they are followed, otherwise
they are broken either accidentally or on purpose. History has shown this to be
true for the Linux kernel as well. That's why Thorsten Leemhuis volunteered to
keep an eye on things as the Linux kernel's regression tracker, who's
occasionally helped by other people. Neither of them are paid to do this,
that's why regression tracking is done on a best effort basis.”h]”hXÉ  Rules like â€œno regressionsâ€ need someone to ensure they are followed, otherwise
they are broken either accidentally or on purpose. History has shown this to be
true for the Linux kernel as well. Thatâ€™s why Thorsten Leemhuis volunteered to
keep an eye on things as the Linux kernelâ€™s regression tracker, whoâ€™s
occasionally helped by other people. Neither of them are paid to do this,
thatâ€™s why regression tracking is done on a best effort basis.”…””}”(hj”	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M>hjƒ	  hžhubhØ)”}”(hXN  Earlier attempts to manually track regressions have shown it's an exhausting and
frustrating work, which is why they were abandoned after a while. To prevent
this from happening again, Thorsten developed regzbot to facilitate the work,
with the long term goal to automate regression tracking as much as possible for
everyone involved.”h]”hXP  Earlier attempts to manually track regressions have shown itâ€™s an exhausting and
frustrating work, which is why they were abandoned after a while. To prevent
this from happening again, Thorsten developed regzbot to facilitate the work,
with the long term goal to automate regression tracking as much as possible for
everyone involved.”…””}”(hj¢	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MEhjƒ	  hžhubeh}”(h]”ŒEwhy-the-linux-kernel-has-a-regression-tracker-and-why-is-regzbot-used”ah ]”h"]”ŒGwhy the linux kernel has a regression tracker, and why is regzbot used?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h M<ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ/How does regression tracking work with regzbot?”h]”hŒ/How does regression tracking work with regzbot?”…””}”(hj»	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj¸	  hžhhŸh³h MLubhØ)”}”(hX7  The bot watches for replies to reports of tracked regressions. Additionally,
it's looking out for posted or committed patches referencing such reports
with "Closes:" tags; replies to such patch postings are tracked as well.
Combined this data provides good insights into the current state of the fixing
process.”h]”hX=  The bot watches for replies to reports of tracked regressions. Additionally,
itâ€™s looking out for posted or committed patches referencing such reports
with â€œCloses:â€ tags; replies to such patch postings are tracked as well.
Combined this data provides good insights into the current state of the fixing
process.”…””}”(hjÉ	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MNhj¸	  hžhubhØ)”}”(hXe  Regzbot tries to do its job with as little overhead as possible for both
reporters and developers. In fact, only reporters are burdened with an extra
duty: they need to tell regzbot about the regression report using the ``#regzbot
introduced`` command outlined above; if they don't do that, someone else can
take care of that using ``#regzbot ^introduced``.”h]”(hŒÜRegzbot tries to do its job with as little overhead as possible for both
reporters and developers. In fact, only reporters are burdened with an extra
duty: they need to tell regzbot about the regression report using the ”…””}”(hj×	  hžhhŸNh NubjÒ  )”}”(hŒ``#regzbot
introduced``”h]”hŒ#regzbot
introduced”…””}”(hjß	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jÑ  hj×	  ubhŒ[ command outlined above; if they donâ€™t do that, someone else can
take care of that using ”…””}”(hj×	  hžhhŸNh NubjÒ  )”}”(hŒ``#regzbot ^introduced``”h]”hŒ#regzbot ^introduced”…””}”(hjñ	  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jÑ  hj×	  ubhŒ.”…””}”(hj×	  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MThj¸	  hžhubhØ)”}”(hŒëFor developers there normally is no extra work involved, they just need to make
sure to do something that was expected long before regzbot came to light: add
links to the patch description pointing to all reports about the issue fixed.”h]”hŒëFor developers there normally is no extra work involved, they just need to make
sure to do something that was expected long before regzbot came to light: add
links to the patch description pointing to all reports about the issue fixed.”…””}”(hj	
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MZhj¸	  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ.how-does-regression-tracking-work-with-regzbot”ah ]”h"]”Œ/how does regression tracking work with regzbot?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h MLubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒDo I have to use regzbot?”h]”hŒDo I have to use regzbot?”…””}”(hj"
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj
  hžhhŸh³h M_ubhØ)”}”(hXb  It's in the interest of everyone if you do, as kernel maintainers like Linus
Torvalds partly rely on regzbot's tracking in their work -- for example when
deciding to release a new version or extend the development phase. For this they
need to be aware of all unfixed regression; to do that, Linus is known to look
into the weekly reports sent by regzbot.”h]”hXf  Itâ€™s in the interest of everyone if you do, as kernel maintainers like Linus
Torvalds partly rely on regzbotâ€™s tracking in their work -- for example when
deciding to release a new version or extend the development phase. For this they
need to be aware of all unfixed regression; to do that, Linus is known to look
into the weekly reports sent by regzbot.”…””}”(hj0
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Mahj
  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œdo-i-have-to-use-regzbot”ah ]”h"]”Œdo i have to use regzbot?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h M_ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ@Do I have to tell regzbot about every regression I stumble upon?”h]”hŒ@Do I have to tell regzbot about every regression I stumble upon?”…””}”(hjI
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjF
  hžhhŸh³h MhubhØ)”}”(hX—  Ideally yes: we are all humans and easily forget problems when something more
important unexpectedly comes up -- for example a bigger problem in the Linux
kernel or something in real life that's keeping us away from keyboards for a
while. Hence, it's best to tell regzbot about every regression, except when you
immediately write a fix and commit it to a tree regularly merged to the affected
kernel series.”h]”hX›  Ideally yes: we are all humans and easily forget problems when something more
important unexpectedly comes up -- for example a bigger problem in the Linux
kernel or something in real life thatâ€™s keeping us away from keyboards for a
while. Hence, itâ€™s best to tell regzbot about every regression, except when you
immediately write a fix and commit it to a tree regularly merged to the affected
kernel series.”…””}”(hjW
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MjhjF
  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ?do-i-have-to-tell-regzbot-about-every-regression-i-stumble-upon”ah ]”h"]”Œ@do i have to tell regzbot about every regression i stumble upon?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h MhubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ6How to see which regressions regzbot tracks currently?”h]”hŒ6How to see which regressions regzbot tracks currently?”…””}”(hjp
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjm
  hžhhŸh³h MrubhØ)”}”(hX~  Check `regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_
for the latest info; alternatively, `search for the latest regression report
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=%22Linux+regressions+report%22+f%3Aregzbot>`_,
which regzbot normally sends out once a week on Sunday evening (UTC), which is a
few hours before Linus usually publishes new (pre-)releases.”h]”(hŒCheck ”…””}”(hj~
  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒM`regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_”h]”hŒregzbotâ€™s web-interface”…””}”(hj†
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œregzbot's web-interface”j-  Œ0https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/”uh1j  hj~
  ubj0  )”}”(hŒ3 <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œregzbot-s-web-interface”ah ]”h"]”Œregzbot's web-interface”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j–
  uh1j/  j>  Khj~
  ubhŒ%
for the latest info; alternatively, ”…””}”(hj~
  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒw`search for the latest regression report
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=%22Linux+regressions+report%22+f%3Aregzbot>`_”h]”hŒ'search for the latest regression report”…””}”(hj¨
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ'search for the latest regression report”j-  ŒJhttps://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=%22Linux+regressions+report%22+f%3Aregzbot”uh1j  hj~
  ubj0  )”}”(hŒM
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=%22Linux+regressions+report%22+f%3Aregzbot>”h]”h}”(h]”Œ'search-for-the-latest-regression-report”ah ]”h"]”Œ'search for the latest regression report”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j¸
  uh1j/  j>  Khj~
  ubhŒ,
which regzbot normally sends out once a week on Sunday evening (UTC), which is a
few hours before Linus usually publishes new (pre-)releases.”…””}”(hj~
  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Mthjm
  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ5how-to-see-which-regressions-regzbot-tracks-currently”ah ]”h"]”Œ6how to see which regressions regzbot tracks currently?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h MrubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ"What places is regzbot monitoring?”h]”hŒ"What places is regzbot monitoring?”…””}”(hjÛ
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjØ
  hžhhŸh³h M{ubhØ)”}”(hŒˆRegzbot is watching the most important Linux mailing lists as well as the git
repositories of linux-next, mainline, and stable/longterm.”h]”hŒˆRegzbot is watching the most important Linux mailing lists as well as the git
repositories of linux-next, mainline, and stable/longterm.”…””}”(hjé
  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M}hjØ
  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ!what-places-is-regzbot-monitoring”ah ]”h"]”Œ"what places is regzbot monitoring?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h M{ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ:What kind of issues are supposed to be tracked by regzbot?”h]”hŒ:What kind of issues are supposed to be tracked by regzbot?”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjÿ
  hžhhŸh³h MubhØ)”}”(hX!  The bot is meant to track regressions, hence please don't involve regzbot for
regular issues. But it's okay for the Linux kernel's regression tracker if you
use regzbot to track severe issues, like reports about hangs, corrupted data,
or internal errors (Panic, Oops, BUG(), warning, ...).”h]”hX'  The bot is meant to track regressions, hence please donâ€™t involve regzbot for
regular issues. But itâ€™s okay for the Linux kernelâ€™s regression tracker if you
use regzbot to track severe issues, like reports about hangs, corrupted data,
or internal errors (Panic, Oops, BUG(), warning, ...).”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Mƒhjÿ
  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ9what-kind-of-issues-are-supposed-to-be-tracked-by-regzbot”ah ]”h"]”Œ:what kind of issues are supposed to be tracked by regzbot?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h MubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ@Can I add regressions found by CI systems to regzbot's tracking?”h]”hŒBCan I add regressions found by CI systems to regzbotâ€™s tracking?”…””}”(hj)  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhj&  hžhhŸh³h M‰ubhØ)”}”(hŒîFeel free to do so, if the particular regression likely has impact on practical
use cases and thus might be noticed by users; hence, please don't involve
regzbot for theoretical regressions unlikely to show themselves in real world
usage.”h]”hŒðFeel free to do so, if the particular regression likely has impact on practical
use cases and thus might be noticed by users; hence, please donâ€™t involve
regzbot for theoretical regressions unlikely to show themselves in real world
usage.”…””}”(hj7  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M‹hj&  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ?can-i-add-regressions-found-by-ci-systems-to-regzbot-s-tracking”ah ]”h"]”Œ@can i add regressions found by ci systems to regzbot's tracking?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h M‰ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒHow to interact with regzbot?”h]”hŒHow to interact with regzbot?”…””}”(hjP  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjM  hžhhŸh³h M‘ubhØ)”}”(hŒáBy using a 'regzbot command' in a direct or indirect reply to the mail with the
regression report. These commands need to be in their own paragraph (IOW: they
need to be separated from the rest of the mail using blank lines).”h]”hŒåBy using a â€˜regzbot commandâ€™ in a direct or indirect reply to the mail with the
regression report. These commands need to be in their own paragraph (IOW: they
need to be separated from the rest of the mail using blank lines).”…””}”(hj^  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M“hjM  hžhubhØ)”}”(hX^  One such command is ``#regzbot introduced: <version or commit>``, which makes
regzbot consider your mail as a regressions report added to the tracking, as
already described above; ``#regzbot ^introduced: <version or commit>`` is another
such command, which makes regzbot consider the parent mail as a report for a
regression which it starts to track.”h]”(hŒOne such command is ”…””}”(hjl  hžhhŸNh NubjÒ  )”}”(hŒ,``#regzbot introduced: <version or commit>``”h]”hŒ(#regzbot introduced: <version or commit>”…””}”(hjt  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jÑ  hjl  ubhŒt, which makes
regzbot consider your mail as a regressions report added to the tracking, as
already described above; ”…””}”(hjl  hžhhŸNh NubjÒ  )”}”(hŒ-``#regzbot ^introduced: <version or commit>``”h]”hŒ)#regzbot ^introduced: <version or commit>”…””}”(hj†  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1jÑ  hjl  ubhŒ} is another
such command, which makes regzbot consider the parent mail as a report for a
regression which it starts to track.”…””}”(hjl  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M—hjM  hžhubhØ)”}”(hX  Once one of those two commands has been utilized, other regzbot commands can be
used in direct or indirect replies to the report. You can write them below one
of the `introduced` commands or in replies to the mail that used one of them
or itself is a reply to that mail:”h]”(hŒ¦Once one of those two commands has been utilized, other regzbot commands can be
used in direct or indirect replies to the report. You can write them below one
of the ”…””}”(hjž  hžhhŸNh NubhŒtitle_reference”“”)”}”(hŒ`introduced`”h]”hŒ
introduced”…””}”(hj¨  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j¦  hjž  ubhŒ\ commands or in replies to the mail that used one of them
or itself is a reply to that mail:”…””}”(hjž  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MhjM  hžhubj^  )”}”(hX}  * Set or update the title::

      #regzbot title: foo

* Monitor a discussion or bugzilla.kernel.org ticket where additions aspects of
  the issue or a fix are discussed -- for example the posting of a patch fixing
  the regression::

      #regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/

  Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot
  will consider all messages in that thread or ticket as related to the fixing
  process.

* Point to a place with further details of interest, like a mailing list post
  or a ticket in a bug tracker that are slightly related, but about a different
  topic::

      #regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789

* Mark a regression as fixed by a commit that is heading upstream or already
  landed::

      #regzbot fix: 1f2e3d4c5d

* Mark a regression as a duplicate of another one already tracked by regzbot::

      #regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/

* Mark a regression as invalid::

      #regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hŒ3Set or update the title::

    #regzbot title: foo
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒSet or update the title::”h]”hŒSet or update the title:”…””}”(hjË  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M¢hjÇ  ubjì  )”}”(hŒ#regzbot title: foo”h]”hŒ#regzbot title: foo”…””}”hjÙ  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h M¤hjÇ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÄ  ubj  )”}”(hX®  Monitor a discussion or bugzilla.kernel.org ticket where additions aspects of
the issue or a fix are discussed -- for example the posting of a patch fixing
the regression::

    #regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/

Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot
will consider all messages in that thread or ticket as related to the fixing
process.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒ¬Monitor a discussion or bugzilla.kernel.org ticket where additions aspects of
the issue or a fix are discussed -- for example the posting of a patch fixing
the regression::”h]”hŒ«Monitor a discussion or bugzilla.kernel.org ticket where additions aspects of
the issue or a fix are discussed -- for example the posting of a patch fixing
the regression:”…””}”(hjñ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M¦hjí  ubjì  )”}”(hŒY#regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/”h]”hŒY#regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/”…””}”hjÿ  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h Mªhjí  ubhØ)”}”(hŒ Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot
will consider all messages in that thread or ticket as related to the fixing
process.”h]”hŒ Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot
will consider all messages in that thread or ticket as related to the fixing
process.”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M¬hjí  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÄ  ubj  )”}”(hŒìPoint to a place with further details of interest, like a mailing list post
or a ticket in a bug tracker that are slightly related, but about a different
topic::

    #regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒ¡Point to a place with further details of interest, like a mailing list post
or a ticket in a bug tracker that are slightly related, but about a different
topic::”h]”hŒ Point to a place with further details of interest, like a mailing list post
or a ticket in a bug tracker that are slightly related, but about a different
topic:”…””}”(hj%  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M°hj!  ubjì  )”}”(hŒD#regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789”h]”hŒD#regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789”…””}”hj3  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h M´hj!  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÄ  ubj  )”}”(hŒrMark a regression as fixed by a commit that is heading upstream or already
landed::

    #regzbot fix: 1f2e3d4c5d
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒSMark a regression as fixed by a commit that is heading upstream or already
landed::”h]”hŒRMark a regression as fixed by a commit that is heading upstream or already
landed:”…””}”(hjK  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M¶hjG  ubjì  )”}”(hŒ#regzbot fix: 1f2e3d4c5d”h]”hŒ#regzbot fix: 1f2e3d4c5d”…””}”hjY  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h M¹hjG  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÄ  ubj  )”}”(hŒ«Mark a regression as a duplicate of another one already tracked by regzbot::

    #regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒLMark a regression as a duplicate of another one already tracked by regzbot::”h]”hŒKMark a regression as a duplicate of another one already tracked by regzbot:”…””}”(hjq  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M»hjm  ubjì  )”}”(hŒX#regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/”h]”hŒX#regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/”…””}”hj  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h M½hjm  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÄ  ubj  )”}”(hŒfMark a regression as invalid::

    #regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒMark a regression as invalid::”h]”hŒMark a regression as invalid:”…””}”(hj—  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M¿hj“  ubjì  )”}”(hŒA#regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed”h]”hŒA#regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed”…””}”hj¥  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MÁhj“  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hjÄ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h M¢hjÀ  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h M¢hjM  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œhow-to-interact-with-regzbot”ah ]”h"]”Œhow to interact with regzbot?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h M‘ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ5Is there more to tell about regzbot and its commands?”h]”hŒ5Is there more to tell about regzbot and its commands?”…””}”(hjÐ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjÍ  hžhhŸh³h MÄubhØ)”}”(hX»  More detailed and up-to-date information about the Linux
kernel's regression tracking bot can be found on its
`project page <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot>`_, which among others
contains a `getting started guide <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md>`_
and `reference documentation <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>`_
which both cover more details than the above section.”h]”(hŒpMore detailed and up-to-date information about the Linux
kernelâ€™s regression tracking bot can be found on its
”…””}”(hjÞ  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒ4`project page <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot>`_”h]”hŒproject page”…””}”(hjæ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œproject page”j-  Œ"https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot”uh1j  hjÞ  ubj0  )”}”(hŒ% <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot>”h]”h}”(h]”Œproject-page”ah ]”h"]”Œproject page”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”jö  uh1j/  j>  KhjÞ  ubhŒ , which among others
contains a ”…””}”(hjÞ  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒa`getting started guide <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md>`_”h]”hŒgetting started guide”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œgetting started guide”j-  ŒFhttps://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md”uh1j  hjÞ  ubj0  )”}”(hŒI <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md>”h]”h}”(h]”Œgetting-started-guide”ah ]”h"]”Œgetting started guide”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j  uh1j/  j>  KhjÞ  ubhŒ
and ”…””}”(hjÞ  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒ]`reference documentation <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>`_”h]”hŒreference documentation”…””}”(hj*  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œreference documentation”j-  Œ@https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md”uh1j  hjÞ  ubj0  )”}”(hŒC <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>”h]”h}”(h]”Œreference-documentation”ah ]”h"]”Œreference documentation”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j:  uh1j/  j>  KhjÞ  ubhŒ6
which both cover more details than the above section.”…””}”(hjÞ  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MÆhjÍ  hžhubeh}”(h]”Œ4is-there-more-to-tell-about-regzbot-and-its-commands”ah ]”h"]”Œ5is there more to tell about regzbot and its commands?”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhjr	  hžhhŸh³h MÄubeh}”(h]”Œ*more-about-regression-tracking-and-regzbot”ah ]”h"]”Œ*more about regression tracking and regzbot”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj¥  hžhhŸh³h M8ubhÃ)”}”(hhh]”(hÈ)”}”(hŒ"Quotes from Linus about regression”h]”hŒ"Quotes from Linus about regression”…””}”(hje  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1hÇhjb  hžhhŸh³h MÎubhØ)”}”(hŒ\Find below a few real life examples of how Linus Torvalds expects regressions to
be handled:”h]”hŒ\Find below a few real life examples of how Linus Torvalds expects regressions to
be handled:”…””}”(hjs  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MÐhjb  hžhubj^  )”}”(hX9  * From `2017-10-26 (1/2)
  <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      If you break existing user space setups THAT IS A REGRESSION.

      It's not ok to say "but we'll fix the user space setup".

      Really. NOT OK.

      [...]

      The first rule is:

       - we don't cause regressions

      and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to
      them and fix them, instead of blaming user space.

      The fact that you have apparently been denying the regression now for
      three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor
      requests until the people involved understand how kernel development
      is done.

* From `2017-10-26 (2/2)
  <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      People should basically always feel like they can update their kernel
      and simply not have to worry about it.

      I refuse to introduce "you can only update the kernel if you also
      update that other program" kind of limitations. If the kernel used to
      work for you, the rule is that it continues to work for you.

      There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they
      generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened,
      that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to
      avoid them. Maybe we can't practically support the hardware any more
      after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any
      more. Maybe there's a serious security issue with how we did things,
      and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe
      there was some fundamental other breakage that just _had_ to have a
      flag day for very core and fundamental reasons.

      And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments.

      Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some
      feature any more. There's a number of fields in /proc/<pid>/stat that
      are printed out as zeroes, simply because they don't even *exist* in
      the kernel any more, or because showing them was a mistake (typically
      an information leak). But the numbers got replaced by zeroes, so that
      the code that used to parse the fields still works. The user might not
      see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different,
      but things still _work_, even if they might no longer show sensitive
      (or no longer relevant) information.

      But if something actually breaks, then the change must get fixed or
      reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix
      your user space then". It was a kernel change that exposed the
      problem, it needs to be the kernel that corrects for it, because we
      have a "upgrade in place" model. We don't have a "upgrade with new
      user space".

      And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not
      understand and honor this very simple rule.

      This rule is also not going to change.

      And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm
      proud of it.

      I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to
      break that use case in order to make progress" or "you relied on
      undocumented behavior, it sucks to be you" or "there's a better way to
      do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better
      way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early
      alpha releases that have experimental users that know what they signed
      up for. The kernel hasn't been in that situation for the last two
      decades.

      We do API breakage _inside_ the kernel all the time. We will fix
      internal problems by saying "you now need to do XYZ", but then it's
      about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also
      obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody
      can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it
      up". Whoever broke something gets to fix it too.

      And we simply do not break user space.

* From `2020-05-21
  <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      The rules about regressions have never been about any kind of
      documented behavior, or where the code lives.

      The rules about regressions are always about "breaks user workflow".

      Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters.

      No amount of "you shouldn't have used this" or "that behavior was
      undefined, it's your own fault your app broke" or "that used to work
      simply because of a kernel bug" is at all relevant.

      Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things
      like "serious security issue" etc that just forces us to make changes
      that may break user space. But even then the rule is that we don't
      really have other options that would allow things to continue.

      And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something
      broke, or if we have sane ways to work around the breakage that
      doesn't make for too much trouble for users (ie "ok, there are a
      handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work
      around it" kind of things) we've also been a bit less strict.

      But no, "that was documented to be broken" (whether it's because the
      code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is
      irrelevant. If staging code is so useful that people end up using it,
      that means that it's basically regular kernel code with a flag saying
      "please clean this up".

      The other side of the coin is that people who talk about "API
      stability" are entirely wrong. API's don't matter either. You can make
      any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices.

      Again, the regression rule is not about documentation, not about
      API's, and not about the phase of the moon.

      It's entirely about "we caused problems for user space that used to work".

* From `2017-11-05
  <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change".
      That would mean that we could never make any changes at all.

      For example, we do things like add new error handling etc all the
      time, which we then sometimes even add tests for in our kselftest
      directory.

      So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a
      regression per se.

      The rule for a regression for the kernel is that some real user
      workflow breaks. Not some test. Not a "look, I used to be able to do
      X, now I can't".

* From `2018-08-03
  <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      YOU ARE MISSING THE #1 KERNEL RULE.

      We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong.

      And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you
      are wrong.

      Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage.

      The whole point of "we do not regress" is so that people can upgrade
      the kernel and never have to worry about it.

      > Kernel had a bug which has been fixed

      That is *ENTIRELY* immaterial.

      Guys, whether something was buggy or not DOES NOT MATTER.

      Why?

      Bugs happen. That's a fact of life. Arguing that "we had to break
      something because we were fixing a bug" is completely insane. We fix
      tens of bugs every single day, thinking that "fixing a bug" means that
      we can break something is simply NOT TRUE.

      So bugs simply aren't even relevant to the discussion. They happen,
      they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we
      break users".

      Because the only thing that matters IS THE USER.

      How hard is that to understand?

      Anybody who uses "but it was buggy" as an argument is entirely missing
      the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it
      worked for him/her.

      Maybe it worked *because* the user had taken the bug into account,
      maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't
      matter. It worked for the user.

      Breaking a user workflow for a "bug" is absolutely the WORST reason
      for breakage you can imagine.

      It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it,
      but now it's better". Do you not see how f*cking insane that statement
      is?

      And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless
      piece of code that you might as well throw away.

      Seriously. This is *why* the #1 rule for kernel development is "we
      don't break users". Because "I fixed a bug" is absolutely NOT AN
      ARGUMENT if that bug fix broke a user setup. You actually introduced a
      MUCH BIGGER bug by "fixing" something that the user clearly didn't
      even care about.

      And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any
      other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days
      and dependencies are horribly bad.

      And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not
      upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop
      the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same
      time.

      So no. Your rule is COMPLETELY wrong. If you cannot upgrade a kernel
      without upgrading some other random binary, then we have a problem.

* From `2021-06-05
  <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      THERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS.

      Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not
      a success case of security. It's a failure case.

      Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*.

* From `2011-05-06 (1/3)
  <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      Binary compatibility is more important.

      And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just
      parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to
      /proc/self/mountinfo), then it's a regression.

      And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or
      similar that makes us go "Oh Gods, we really have to break things".

      I don't understand why this simple logic is so hard for some kernel
      developers to understand. Reality matters. Your personal wishes matter
      NOT AT ALL.

      If you made an interface that can be used without parsing the
      interface description, then we're stuck with the interface. Theory
      simply doesn't matter.

      You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility
      issues that way. There aren't that many of them.

  From `2011-05-06 (2/3)
  <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      it's clearly NOT an internal tracepoint. By definition. It's being
      used by powertop.

  From `2011-05-06 (3/3)
  <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      We have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break.

* From `2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      > Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a
      > standard distro userspace.

      Oh, if the kernel breaks some standard user space, that counts. Tons
      of people run Debian unstable

* From `2019-09-15
  <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

      One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring
      the version change itself) done just before the release, and while
      it's very annoying, it's perhaps also instructive.

      What's instructive about it is that I reverted a commit that wasn't
      actually buggy. In fact, it was doing exactly what it set out to do,
      and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much
      improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible
      regression due to a real bug in a completely unrelated area.

      The actual details of that regression are not the reason I point that
      revert out as instructive, though. It's more that it's an instructive
      example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no
      regressions" kernel rule means. The reverted commit didn't change any
      API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing
      another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a
      user. So it got reverted.

      The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_,
      not based on some "it changes the ABI" or "it caused a bug" concept.
      The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to
      trigger before. The better IO patterns introduced by the change just
      happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the
      previously benign behavior of that old issue.

      And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO
      patterns once we've decided just how to handle the fact that we had a
      bad interaction with an interface that people had then just happened
      to rely on incidental behavior for before. It's just that we'll have
      to hash through how to do that (there are no less than three different
      patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might
      be more coming...). In the meantime, I reverted the thing that exposed
      the problem to users for this release, even if I hope it will be
      re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have
      consensus about the issue it exposed.

      Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the
      kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code
      "should never have worked in the first place". It's about whether
      something breaks existing users' workflow.

      Anyway, that was my little aside on the whole regression thing.  Since
      it's that "first rule of kernel programming", I felt it is perhaps
      worth just bringing it up every once in a while
”h]”jd  )”}”(hhh]”(j  )”}”(hXÄ  From `2017-10-26 (1/2)
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    If you break existing user space setups THAT IS A REGRESSION.

    It's not ok to say "but we'll fix the user space setup".

    Really. NOT OK.

    [...]

    The first rule is:

     - we don't cause regressions

    and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to
    them and fix them, instead of blaming user space.

    The fact that you have apparently been denying the regression now for
    three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor
    requests until the people involved understand how kernel development
    is done.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒ}From `2017-10-26 (1/2)
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hjŒ  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒv`2017-10-26 (1/2)
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ2017-10-26 (1/2)”…””}”(hj”  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ2017-10-26 (1/2)”j-  Œ`https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hjŒ  ubj0  )”}”(hŒc
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid2”ah ]”h"]”Œ2017-10-26 (1/2)”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j¤  uh1j/  j>  KhjŒ  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hjŒ  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MÓhjˆ  ubjì  )”}”(hX  If you break existing user space setups THAT IS A REGRESSION.

It's not ok to say "but we'll fix the user space setup".

Really. NOT OK.

[...]

The first rule is:

 - we don't cause regressions

and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to
them and fix them, instead of blaming user space.

The fact that you have apparently been denying the regression now for
three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor
requests until the people involved understand how kernel development
is done.”h]”hX  If you break existing user space setups THAT IS A REGRESSION.

It's not ok to say "but we'll fix the user space setup".

Really. NOT OK.

[...]

The first rule is:

 - we don't cause regressions

and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to
them and fix them, instead of blaming user space.

The fact that you have apparently been denying the regression now for
three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor
requests until the people involved understand how kernel development
is done.”…””}”hj¼  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MÖhjˆ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hXH  From `2017-10-26 (2/2)
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    People should basically always feel like they can update their kernel
    and simply not have to worry about it.

    I refuse to introduce "you can only update the kernel if you also
    update that other program" kind of limitations. If the kernel used to
    work for you, the rule is that it continues to work for you.

    There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they
    generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened,
    that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to
    avoid them. Maybe we can't practically support the hardware any more
    after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any
    more. Maybe there's a serious security issue with how we did things,
    and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe
    there was some fundamental other breakage that just _had_ to have a
    flag day for very core and fundamental reasons.

    And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments.

    Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some
    feature any more. There's a number of fields in /proc/<pid>/stat that
    are printed out as zeroes, simply because they don't even *exist* in
    the kernel any more, or because showing them was a mistake (typically
    an information leak). But the numbers got replaced by zeroes, so that
    the code that used to parse the fields still works. The user might not
    see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different,
    but things still _work_, even if they might no longer show sensitive
    (or no longer relevant) information.

    But if something actually breaks, then the change must get fixed or
    reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix
    your user space then". It was a kernel change that exposed the
    problem, it needs to be the kernel that corrects for it, because we
    have a "upgrade in place" model. We don't have a "upgrade with new
    user space".

    And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not
    understand and honor this very simple rule.

    This rule is also not going to change.

    And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm
    proud of it.

    I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to
    break that use case in order to make progress" or "you relied on
    undocumented behavior, it sucks to be you" or "there's a better way to
    do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better
    way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early
    alpha releases that have experimental users that know what they signed
    up for. The kernel hasn't been in that situation for the last two
    decades.

    We do API breakage _inside_ the kernel all the time. We will fix
    internal problems by saying "you now need to do XYZ", but then it's
    about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also
    obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody
    can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it
    up". Whoever broke something gets to fix it too.

    And we simply do not break user space.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒ}From `2017-10-26 (2/2)
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hjÔ  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒv`2017-10-26 (2/2)
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ2017-10-26 (2/2)”…””}”(hjÜ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ2017-10-26 (2/2)”j-  Œ`https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hjÔ  ubj0  )”}”(hŒc
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid3”ah ]”h"]”Œ2017-10-26 (2/2)”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”jì  uh1j/  j>  KhjÔ  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hjÔ  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MêhjÐ  ubjì  )”}”(hX   People should basically always feel like they can update their kernel
and simply not have to worry about it.

I refuse to introduce "you can only update the kernel if you also
update that other program" kind of limitations. If the kernel used to
work for you, the rule is that it continues to work for you.

There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they
generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened,
that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to
avoid them. Maybe we can't practically support the hardware any more
after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any
more. Maybe there's a serious security issue with how we did things,
and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe
there was some fundamental other breakage that just _had_ to have a
flag day for very core and fundamental reasons.

And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments.

Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some
feature any more. There's a number of fields in /proc/<pid>/stat that
are printed out as zeroes, simply because they don't even *exist* in
the kernel any more, or because showing them was a mistake (typically
an information leak). But the numbers got replaced by zeroes, so that
the code that used to parse the fields still works. The user might not
see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different,
but things still _work_, even if they might no longer show sensitive
(or no longer relevant) information.

But if something actually breaks, then the change must get fixed or
reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix
your user space then". It was a kernel change that exposed the
problem, it needs to be the kernel that corrects for it, because we
have a "upgrade in place" model. We don't have a "upgrade with new
user space".

And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not
understand and honor this very simple rule.

This rule is also not going to change.

And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm
proud of it.

I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to
break that use case in order to make progress" or "you relied on
undocumented behavior, it sucks to be you" or "there's a better way to
do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better
way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early
alpha releases that have experimental users that know what they signed
up for. The kernel hasn't been in that situation for the last two
decades.

We do API breakage _inside_ the kernel all the time. We will fix
internal problems by saying "you now need to do XYZ", but then it's
about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also
obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody
can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it
up". Whoever broke something gets to fix it too.

And we simply do not break user space.”h]”hX   People should basically always feel like they can update their kernel
and simply not have to worry about it.

I refuse to introduce "you can only update the kernel if you also
update that other program" kind of limitations. If the kernel used to
work for you, the rule is that it continues to work for you.

There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they
generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened,
that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to
avoid them. Maybe we can't practically support the hardware any more
after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any
more. Maybe there's a serious security issue with how we did things,
and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe
there was some fundamental other breakage that just _had_ to have a
flag day for very core and fundamental reasons.

And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments.

Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some
feature any more. There's a number of fields in /proc/<pid>/stat that
are printed out as zeroes, simply because they don't even *exist* in
the kernel any more, or because showing them was a mistake (typically
an information leak). But the numbers got replaced by zeroes, so that
the code that used to parse the fields still works. The user might not
see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different,
but things still _work_, even if they might no longer show sensitive
(or no longer relevant) information.

But if something actually breaks, then the change must get fixed or
reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix
your user space then". It was a kernel change that exposed the
problem, it needs to be the kernel that corrects for it, because we
have a "upgrade in place" model. We don't have a "upgrade with new
user space".

And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not
understand and honor this very simple rule.

This rule is also not going to change.

And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm
proud of it.

I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to
break that use case in order to make progress" or "you relied on
undocumented behavior, it sucks to be you" or "there's a better way to
do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better
way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early
alpha releases that have experimental users that know what they signed
up for. The kernel hasn't been in that situation for the last two
decades.

We do API breakage _inside_ the kernel all the time. We will fix
internal problems by saying "you now need to do XYZ", but then it's
about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also
obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody
can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it
up". Whoever broke something gets to fix it too.

And we simply do not break user space.”…””}”hj  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MíhjÐ  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hX  From `2020-05-21
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    The rules about regressions have never been about any kind of
    documented behavior, or where the code lives.

    The rules about regressions are always about "breaks user workflow".

    Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters.

    No amount of "you shouldn't have used this" or "that behavior was
    undefined, it's your own fault your app broke" or "that used to work
    simply because of a kernel bug" is at all relevant.

    Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things
    like "serious security issue" etc that just forces us to make changes
    that may break user space. But even then the rule is that we don't
    really have other options that would allow things to continue.

    And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something
    broke, or if we have sane ways to work around the breakage that
    doesn't make for too much trouble for users (ie "ok, there are a
    handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work
    around it" kind of things) we've also been a bit less strict.

    But no, "that was documented to be broken" (whether it's because the
    code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is
    irrelevant. If staging code is so useful that people end up using it,
    that means that it's basically regular kernel code with a flag saying
    "please clean this up".

    The other side of the coin is that people who talk about "API
    stability" are entirely wrong. API's don't matter either. You can make
    any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices.

    Again, the regression rule is not about documentation, not about
    API's, and not about the phase of the moon.

    It's entirely about "we caused problems for user space that used to work".
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒvFrom `2020-05-21
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒo`2020-05-21
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ
2020-05-21”…””}”(hj$  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ
2020-05-21”j-  Œ_https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hj  ubj0  )”}”(hŒb
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid4”ah ]”h"]”Œ
2020-05-21”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j4  uh1j/  j>  Khj  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M+hj  ubjì  )”}”(hXš  The rules about regressions have never been about any kind of
documented behavior, or where the code lives.

The rules about regressions are always about "breaks user workflow".

Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters.

No amount of "you shouldn't have used this" or "that behavior was
undefined, it's your own fault your app broke" or "that used to work
simply because of a kernel bug" is at all relevant.

Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things
like "serious security issue" etc that just forces us to make changes
that may break user space. But even then the rule is that we don't
really have other options that would allow things to continue.

And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something
broke, or if we have sane ways to work around the breakage that
doesn't make for too much trouble for users (ie "ok, there are a
handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work
around it" kind of things) we've also been a bit less strict.

But no, "that was documented to be broken" (whether it's because the
code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is
irrelevant. If staging code is so useful that people end up using it,
that means that it's basically regular kernel code with a flag saying
"please clean this up".

The other side of the coin is that people who talk about "API
stability" are entirely wrong. API's don't matter either. You can make
any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices.

Again, the regression rule is not about documentation, not about
API's, and not about the phase of the moon.

It's entirely about "we caused problems for user space that used to work".”h]”hXš  The rules about regressions have never been about any kind of
documented behavior, or where the code lives.

The rules about regressions are always about "breaks user workflow".

Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters.

No amount of "you shouldn't have used this" or "that behavior was
undefined, it's your own fault your app broke" or "that used to work
simply because of a kernel bug" is at all relevant.

Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things
like "serious security issue" etc that just forces us to make changes
that may break user space. But even then the rule is that we don't
really have other options that would allow things to continue.

And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something
broke, or if we have sane ways to work around the breakage that
doesn't make for too much trouble for users (ie "ok, there are a
handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work
around it" kind of things) we've also been a bit less strict.

But no, "that was documented to be broken" (whether it's because the
code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is
irrelevant. If staging code is so useful that people end up using it,
that means that it's basically regular kernel code with a flag saying
"please clean this up".

The other side of the coin is that people who talk about "API
stability" are entirely wrong. API's don't matter either. You can make
any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices.

Again, the regression rule is not about documentation, not about
API's, and not about the phase of the moon.

It's entirely about "we caused problems for user space that used to work".”…””}”hjL  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h M.hj  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hX   From `2017-11-05
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change".
    That would mean that we could never make any changes at all.

    For example, we do things like add new error handling etc all the
    time, which we then sometimes even add tests for in our kselftest
    directory.

    So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a
    regression per se.

    The rule for a regression for the kernel is that some real user
    workflow breaks. Not some test. Not a "look, I used to be able to do
    X, now I can't".
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒvFrom `2017-11-05
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hjd  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒo`2017-11-05
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ
2017-11-05”…””}”(hjl  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ
2017-11-05”j-  Œ_https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hjd  ubj0  )”}”(hŒb
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid5”ah ]”h"]”Œ
2017-11-05”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j|  uh1j/  j>  Khjd  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hjd  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MShj`  ubjì  )”}”(hXÿ  And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change".
That would mean that we could never make any changes at all.

For example, we do things like add new error handling etc all the
time, which we then sometimes even add tests for in our kselftest
directory.

So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a
regression per se.

The rule for a regression for the kernel is that some real user
workflow breaks. Not some test. Not a "look, I used to be able to do
X, now I can't".”h]”hXÿ  And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change".
That would mean that we could never make any changes at all.

For example, we do things like add new error handling etc all the
time, which we then sometimes even add tests for in our kselftest
directory.

So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a
regression per se.

The rule for a regression for the kernel is that some real user
workflow breaks. Not some test. Not a "look, I used to be able to do
X, now I can't".”…””}”hj”  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MVhj`  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hXä
  From `2018-08-03
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    YOU ARE MISSING THE #1 KERNEL RULE.

    We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong.

    And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you
    are wrong.

    Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage.

    The whole point of "we do not regress" is so that people can upgrade
    the kernel and never have to worry about it.

    > Kernel had a bug which has been fixed

    That is *ENTIRELY* immaterial.

    Guys, whether something was buggy or not DOES NOT MATTER.

    Why?

    Bugs happen. That's a fact of life. Arguing that "we had to break
    something because we were fixing a bug" is completely insane. We fix
    tens of bugs every single day, thinking that "fixing a bug" means that
    we can break something is simply NOT TRUE.

    So bugs simply aren't even relevant to the discussion. They happen,
    they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we
    break users".

    Because the only thing that matters IS THE USER.

    How hard is that to understand?

    Anybody who uses "but it was buggy" as an argument is entirely missing
    the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it
    worked for him/her.

    Maybe it worked *because* the user had taken the bug into account,
    maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't
    matter. It worked for the user.

    Breaking a user workflow for a "bug" is absolutely the WORST reason
    for breakage you can imagine.

    It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it,
    but now it's better". Do you not see how f*cking insane that statement
    is?

    And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless
    piece of code that you might as well throw away.

    Seriously. This is *why* the #1 rule for kernel development is "we
    don't break users". Because "I fixed a bug" is absolutely NOT AN
    ARGUMENT if that bug fix broke a user setup. You actually introduced a
    MUCH BIGGER bug by "fixing" something that the user clearly didn't
    even care about.

    And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any
    other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days
    and dependencies are horribly bad.

    And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not
    upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop
    the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same
    time.

    So no. Your rule is COMPLETELY wrong. If you cannot upgrade a kernel
    without upgrading some other random binary, then we have a problem.
”•r      h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒvFrom `2018-08-03
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hj¬  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒo`2018-08-03
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ
2018-08-03”…””}”(hj´  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ
2018-08-03”j-  Œ_https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hj¬  ubj0  )”}”(hŒb
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid6”ah ]”h"]”Œ
2018-08-03”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”jÄ  uh1j/  j>  Khj¬  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hj¬  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h Mdhj¨  ubjì  )”}”(hX¯	  YOU ARE MISSING THE #1 KERNEL RULE.

We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong.

And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you
are wrong.

Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage.

The whole point of "we do not regress" is so that people can upgrade
the kernel and never have to worry about it.

> Kernel had a bug which has been fixed

That is *ENTIRELY* immaterial.

Guys, whether something was buggy or not DOES NOT MATTER.

Why?

Bugs happen. That's a fact of life. Arguing that "we had to break
something because we were fixing a bug" is completely insane. We fix
tens of bugs every single day, thinking that "fixing a bug" means that
we can break something is simply NOT TRUE.

So bugs simply aren't even relevant to the discussion. They happen,
they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we
break users".

Because the only thing that matters IS THE USER.

How hard is that to understand?

Anybody who uses "but it was buggy" as an argument is entirely missing
the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it
worked for him/her.

Maybe it worked *because* the user had taken the bug into account,
maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't
matter. It worked for the user.

Breaking a user workflow for a "bug" is absolutely the WORST reason
for breakage you can imagine.

It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it,
but now it's better". Do you not see how f*cking insane that statement
is?

And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless
piece of code that you might as well throw away.

Seriously. This is *why* the #1 rule for kernel development is "we
don't break users". Because "I fixed a bug" is absolutely NOT AN
ARGUMENT if that bug fix broke a user setup. You actually introduced a
MUCH BIGGER bug by "fixing" something that the user clearly didn't
even care about.

And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any
other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days
and dependencies are horribly bad.

And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not
upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop
the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same
time.

So no. Your rule is COMPLETELY wrong. If you cannot upgrade a kernel
without upgrading some other random binary, then we have a problem.”h]”hX¯	  YOU ARE MISSING THE #1 KERNEL RULE.

We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong.

And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you
are wrong.

Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage.

The whole point of "we do not regress" is so that people can upgrade
the kernel and never have to worry about it.

> Kernel had a bug which has been fixed

That is *ENTIRELY* immaterial.

Guys, whether something was buggy or not DOES NOT MATTER.

Why?

Bugs happen. That's a fact of life. Arguing that "we had to break
something because we were fixing a bug" is completely insane. We fix
tens of bugs every single day, thinking that "fixing a bug" means that
we can break something is simply NOT TRUE.

So bugs simply aren't even relevant to the discussion. They happen,
they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we
break users".

Because the only thing that matters IS THE USER.

How hard is that to understand?

Anybody who uses "but it was buggy" as an argument is entirely missing
the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it
worked for him/her.

Maybe it worked *because* the user had taken the bug into account,
maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't
matter. It worked for the user.

Breaking a user workflow for a "bug" is absolutely the WORST reason
for breakage you can imagine.

It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it,
but now it's better". Do you not see how f*cking insane that statement
is?

And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless
piece of code that you might as well throw away.

Seriously. This is *why* the #1 rule for kernel development is "we
don't break users". Because "I fixed a bug" is absolutely NOT AN
ARGUMENT if that bug fix broke a user setup. You actually introduced a
MUCH BIGGER bug by "fixing" something that the user clearly didn't
even care about.

And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any
other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days
and dependencies are horribly bad.

And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not
upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop
the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same
time.

So no. Your rule is COMPLETELY wrong. If you cannot upgrade a kernel
without upgrading some other random binary, then we have a problem.”…””}”hjÜ  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h Mghj¨  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hX|  From `2021-06-05
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    THERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS.

    Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not
    a success case of security. It's a failure case.

    Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒvFrom `2021-06-05
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hjô  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒo`2021-06-05
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ
2021-06-05”…””}”(hjü  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ
2021-06-05”j-  Œ_https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hjô  ubj0  )”}”(hŒb
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid7”ah ]”h"]”Œ
2021-06-05”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j  uh1j/  j>  Khjô  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hjô  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M¬hjð  ubjì  )”}”(hŒóTHERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS.

Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not
a success case of security. It's a failure case.

Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*.”h]”hŒóTHERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS.

Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not
a success case of security. It's a failure case.

Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*.”…””}”hj$  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h M¯hjð  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hX?  From `2011-05-06 (1/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    Binary compatibility is more important.

    And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just
    parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to
    /proc/self/mountinfo), then it's a regression.

    And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or
    similar that makes us go "Oh Gods, we really have to break things".

    I don't understand why this simple logic is so hard for some kernel
    developers to understand. Reality matters. Your personal wishes matter
    NOT AT ALL.

    If you made an interface that can be used without parsing the
    interface description, then we're stuck with the interface. Theory
    simply doesn't matter.

    You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility
    issues that way. There aren't that many of them.

From `2011-05-06 (2/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    it's clearly NOT an internal tracepoint. By definition. It's being
    used by powertop.

From `2011-05-06 (3/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    We have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break.
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒlFrom `2011-05-06 (1/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hj<  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒe`2011-05-06 (1/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ2011-05-06 (1/3)”…””}”(hjD  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ2011-05-06 (1/3)”j-  ŒOhttps://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hj<  ubj0  )”}”(hŒR
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid8”ah ]”h"]”Œ2011-05-06 (1/3)”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”jT  uh1j/  j>  Khj<  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hj<  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h M¶hj8  ubjì  )”}”(hX  Binary compatibility is more important.

And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just
parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to
/proc/self/mountinfo), then it's a regression.

And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or
similar that makes us go "Oh Gods, we really have to break things".

I don't understand why this simple logic is so hard for some kernel
developers to understand. Reality matters. Your personal wishes matter
NOT AT ALL.

If you made an interface that can be used without parsing the
interface description, then we're stuck with the interface. Theory
simply doesn't matter.

You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility
issues that way. There aren't that many of them.”h]”hX  Binary compatibility is more important.

And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just
parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to
/proc/self/mountinfo), then it's a regression.

And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or
similar that makes us go "Oh Gods, we really have to break things".

I don't understand why this simple logic is so hard for some kernel
developers to understand. Reality matters. Your personal wishes matter
NOT AT ALL.

If you made an interface that can be used without parsing the
interface description, then we're stuck with the interface. Theory
simply doesn't matter.

You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility
issues that way. There aren't that many of them.”…””}”hjl  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h M¹hj8  ubhØ)”}”(hŒlFrom `2011-05-06 (2/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hjz  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒe`2011-05-06 (2/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ2011-05-06 (2/3)”…””}”(hj‚  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ2011-05-06 (2/3)”j-  ŒOhttps://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hjz  ubj0  )”}”(hŒR
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid9”ah ]”h"]”Œ2011-05-06 (2/3)”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j’  uh1j/  j>  Khjz  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hjz  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MÍhj8  ubjì  )”}”(hŒTit's clearly NOT an internal tracepoint. By definition. It's being
used by powertop.”h]”hŒTit's clearly NOT an internal tracepoint. By definition. It's being
used by powertop.”…””}”hjª  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MÐhj8  ubhØ)”}”(hŒlFrom `2011-05-06 (3/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hj¸  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒe`2011-05-06 (3/3)
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ2011-05-06 (3/3)”…””}”(hjÀ  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ2011-05-06 (3/3)”j-  ŒOhttps://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hj¸  ubj0  )”}”(hŒR
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid10”ah ]”h"]”Œ2011-05-06 (3/3)”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”jÐ  uh1j/  j>  Khj¸  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hj¸  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MÓhj8  ubjì  )”}”(hŒLWe have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break.”h]”hŒLWe have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break.”…””}”hjè  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MÖhj8  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hXR  From `2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    > Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a
    > standard distro userspace.

    Oh, if the kernel breaks some standard user space, that counts. Tons
    of people run Debian unstable
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒvFrom `2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hj   hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒo`2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ
2012-07-06”…””}”(hj  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ
2012-07-06”j-  Œ_https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hj   ubj0  )”}”(hŒb <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid11”ah ]”h"]”Œ
2012-07-06”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j  uh1j/  j>  Khj   ubhŒ:”…””}”(hj   hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MØhjü  ubjì  )”}”(hŒÉ> Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a
> standard distro userspace.

Oh, if the kernel breaks some standard user space, that counts. Tons
of people run Debian unstable”h]”hŒÉ> Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a
> standard distro userspace.

Oh, if the kernel breaks some standard user space, that counts. Tons
of people run Debian unstable”…””}”hj0  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MÚhjü  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubj  )”}”(hXŸ
  From `2019-09-15
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::

    One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring
    the version change itself) done just before the release, and while
    it's very annoying, it's perhaps also instructive.

    What's instructive about it is that I reverted a commit that wasn't
    actually buggy. In fact, it was doing exactly what it set out to do,
    and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much
    improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible
    regression due to a real bug in a completely unrelated area.

    The actual details of that regression are not the reason I point that
    revert out as instructive, though. It's more that it's an instructive
    example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no
    regressions" kernel rule means. The reverted commit didn't change any
    API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing
    another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a
    user. So it got reverted.

    The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_,
    not based on some "it changes the ABI" or "it caused a bug" concept.
    The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to
    trigger before. The better IO patterns introduced by the change just
    happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the
    previously benign behavior of that old issue.

    And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO
    patterns once we've decided just how to handle the fact that we had a
    bad interaction with an interface that people had then just happened
    to rely on incidental behavior for before. It's just that we'll have
    to hash through how to do that (there are no less than three different
    patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might
    be more coming...). In the meantime, I reverted the thing that exposed
    the problem to users for this release, even if I hope it will be
    re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have
    consensus about the issue it exposed.

    Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the
    kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code
    "should never have worked in the first place". It's about whether
    something breaks existing users' workflow.

    Anyway, that was my little aside on the whole regression thing.  Since
    it's that "first rule of kernel programming", I felt it is perhaps
    worth just bringing it up every once in a while
”h]”(hØ)”}”(hŒwFrom `2019-09-15
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::”h]”(hŒFrom ”…””}”(hjH  hžhhŸNh Nubj  )”}”(hŒp`2019-09-15
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>`_”h]”hŒ
2019-09-15”…””}”(hjP  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œname”Œ
2019-09-15”j-  Œ`https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/”uh1j  hjH  ubj0  )”}”(hŒc
<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>”h]”h}”(h]”Œid12”ah ]”h"]”Œ
2019-09-15”ah$]”h&]”Œrefuri”j`  uh1j/  j>  KhjH  ubhŒ:”…””}”(hjH  hžhhŸNh Nubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hŸh³h MàhjD  ubjì  )”}”(hX	  One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring
the version change itself) done just before the release, and while
it's very annoying, it's perhaps also instructive.

What's instructive about it is that I reverted a commit that wasn't
actually buggy. In fact, it was doing exactly what it set out to do,
and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much
improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible
regression due to a real bug in a completely unrelated area.

The actual details of that regression are not the reason I point that
revert out as instructive, though. It's more that it's an instructive
example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no
regressions" kernel rule means. The reverted commit didn't change any
API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing
another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a
user. So it got reverted.

The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_,
not based on some "it changes the ABI" or "it caused a bug" concept.
The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to
trigger before. The better IO patterns introduced by the change just
happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the
previously benign behavior of that old issue.

And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO
patterns once we've decided just how to handle the fact that we had a
bad interaction with an interface that people had then just happened
to rely on incidental behavior for before. It's just that we'll have
to hash through how to do that (there are no less than three different
patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might
be more coming...). In the meantime, I reverted the thing that exposed
the problem to users for this release, even if I hope it will be
re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have
consensus about the issue it exposed.

Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the
kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code
"should never have worked in the first place". It's about whether
something breaks existing users' workflow.

Anyway, that was my little aside on the whole regression thing.  Since
it's that "first rule of kernel programming", I felt it is perhaps
worth just bringing it up every once in a while”h]”hX	  One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring
the version change itself) done just before the release, and while
it's very annoying, it's perhaps also instructive.

What's instructive about it is that I reverted a commit that wasn't
actually buggy. In fact, it was doing exactly what it set out to do,
and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much
improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible
regression due to a real bug in a completely unrelated area.

The actual details of that regression are not the reason I point that
revert out as instructive, though. It's more that it's an instructive
example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no
regressions" kernel rule means. The reverted commit didn't change any
API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing
another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a
user. So it got reverted.

The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_,
not based on some "it changes the ABI" or "it caused a bug" concept.
The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to
trigger before. The better IO patterns introduced by the change just
happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the
previously benign behavior of that old issue.

And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO
patterns once we've decided just how to handle the fact that we had a
bad interaction with an interface that people had then just happened
to rely on incidental behavior for before. It's just that we'll have
to hash through how to do that (there are no less than three different
patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might
be more coming...). In the meantime, I reverted the thing that exposed
the problem to users for this release, even if I hope it will be
re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have
consensus about the issue it exposed.

Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the
kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code
"should never have worked in the first place". It's about whether
something breaks existing users' workflow.

Anyway, that was my little aside on the whole regression thing.  Since
it's that "first rule of kernel programming", I felt it is perhaps
worth just bringing it up every once in a while”…””}”hjx  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1jë  hŸh³h MãhjD  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j  hj…  ubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”jž  jŸ  uh1jc  hŸh³h MÓhj  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1j]  hŸh³h MÓhjb  hžhubh¢)”}”(hŒend-of-content”h]”hŒend-of-content”…””}”hj˜  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1h¡hjb  hžhhŸh³h Mubh¢)”}”(hX`  This text is available under GPL-2.0+ or CC-BY-4.0, as stated at the top
of the file. If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only,
please use "The Linux kernel developers" for author attribution and link
this as source:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst”h]”hX`  This text is available under GPL-2.0+ or CC-BY-4.0, as stated at the top
of the file. If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only,
please use "The Linux kernel developers" for author attribution and link
this as source:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst”…””}”hj¦  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1h¡hjb  hžhhŸh³h Mubh¢)”}”(hX  Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources
is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
(for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from
files which use a more restrictive license.”h]”hX  Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources
is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
(for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from
files which use a more restrictive license.”…””}”hj´  sbah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”h±h²uh1h¡hjb  hžhhŸh³h Mubeh}”(h]”Œ"quotes-from-linus-about-regression”ah ]”h"]”Œ"quotes from linus about regression”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhj¥  hžhhŸh³h MÎubeh}”(h]”ŒCall-the-details-on-linux-kernel-regressions-relevant-for-developers”ah ]”h"]”ŒCall the details on linux kernel regressions relevant for developers”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhhÄhžhhŸh³h K9ubeh}”(h]”Œhandling-regressions”ah ]”h"]”Œhandling regressions”ah$]”h&]”uh1hÂhhhžhhŸh³h Kubeh}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”Œsource”h³uh1hŒcurrent_source”NŒcurrent_line”NŒsettings”Œdocutils.frontend”ŒValues”“”)”}”(hÇNŒ	generator”NŒ	datestamp”NŒsource_link”NŒ
source_url”NŒtoc_backlinks”Œentry”Œfootnote_backlinks”KŒsectnum_xform”KŒstrip_comments”NŒstrip_elements_with_classes”NŒstrip_classes”NŒreport_level”KŒ
halt_level”KŒexit_status_level”KŒdebug”NŒwarning_stream”NŒ	traceback”ˆŒinput_encoding”Œ	utf-8-sig”Œinput_encoding_error_handler”Œstrict”Œoutput_encoding”Œutf-8”Œoutput_encoding_error_handler”jý  Œerror_encoding”Œutf-8”Œerror_encoding_error_handler”Œbackslashreplace”Œlanguage_code”Œen”Œrecord_dependencies”NŒconfig”NŒ	id_prefix”hŒauto_id_prefix”Œid”Œdump_settings”NŒdump_internals”NŒdump_transforms”NŒdump_pseudo_xml”NŒexpose_internals”NŒstrict_visitor”NŒ_disable_config”NŒ_source”h³Œ_destination”NŒ_config_files”]”Œ7/var/lib/git/docbuild/linux/Documentation/docutils.conf”aŒfile_insertion_enabled”ˆŒraw_enabled”KŒline_length_limit”M'Œpep_references”NŒpep_base_url”Œhttps://peps.python.org/”Œpep_file_url_template”Œpep-%04d”Œrfc_references”NŒrfc_base_url”Œ&https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/”Œ	tab_width”KŒtrim_footnote_reference_space”‰Œsyntax_highlight”Œlong”Œsmart_quotes”ˆŒsmartquotes_locales”]”Œcharacter_level_inline_markup”‰Œdoctitle_xform”‰Œdocinfo_xform”KŒsectsubtitle_xform”‰Œimage_loading”Œlink”Œembed_stylesheet”‰Œcloak_email_addresses”ˆŒsection_self_link”‰Œenv”NubŒreporter”NŒindirect_targets”]”Œsubstitution_defs”}”Œsubstitution_names”}”Œrefnames”}”Œrefids”}”Œnameids”}”(j×  jÔ  j¢  jŸ  j:  j7  jÏ  jÌ  j8  j5  j  j
  jï  jì  j0  j-  jo	  jl	  j~  j{  j	  j	  jg	  jd	  j_  j\  jµ	  j²	  j
  j
  jC
  j@
  jj
  jg
  jÕ
  jÒ
  j 
  j
  jÂ
  j¿
  jü
  jù
  j#  j   jJ  jG  jÊ  jÇ  jW  jT  j   jý  j"  j  jD  jA  jÇ  jÄ  j®  j«  jö  jó  j>  j;  j†  jƒ  jÎ  jË  j  j  j^  j[  jœ  j™  jÚ  j×  j"  j  jj  jg  uŒ	nametypes”}”(j×  ‰j¢  ‰j:  ˆjÏ  ‰j8  ‰j  ‰jï  ‰j0  ‰jo	  ‰j~  ‰j	  ‰jg	  ‰j_  ‰jµ	  ‰j
  ‰jC
  ‰jj
  ‰jÕ
  ‰j 
  ˆjÂ
  ˆjü
  ‰j#  ‰jJ  ‰jÊ  ‰jW  ‰j   ˆj"  ˆjD  ˆjÇ  ‰j®  ˆjö  ˆj>  ˆj†  ˆjÎ  ˆj  ˆj^  ˆjœ  ˆjÚ  ˆj"  ˆjj  ˆuh}”(jÔ  hÄjŸ  h÷j7  j1  jÌ  j¥  j5  j¶  j
  jÇ  j÷  jñ  jì  j  j-  jò  jl	  j;  j{  jL  j	  j  jd	  j	  j\  jr	  j²	  jƒ	  j
  j¸	  j@
  j
  jg
  jF
  jÒ
  jm
  j
  j—
  j¿
  j¹
  jù
  jØ
  j   jÿ
  jG  j&  jÇ  jM  jT  jÍ  jý  j÷  j  j  jA  j;  jÄ  jb  j«  j¥  jó  jí  j;  j5  jƒ  j}  jË  jÅ  j  j  j[  jU  j™  j“  j×  jÑ  j  j  jg  ja  uŒfootnote_refs”}”Œcitation_refs”}”Œautofootnotes”]”Œautofootnote_refs”]”Œsymbol_footnotes”]”Œsymbol_footnote_refs”]”Œ	footnotes”]”Œ	citations”]”Œautofootnote_start”KŒsymbol_footnote_start”K Œ
id_counter”Œcollections”ŒCounter”“”}”j  Ks…”R”Œparse_messages”]”hŒsystem_message”“”)”}”(hhh]”hØ)”}”(hŒ:Duplicate explicit target name: "regression mailing list".”h]”hŒ>Duplicate explicit target name: â€œregression mailing listâ€.”…””}”(hjd  hžhhŸNh Nubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”uh1h×hja  ubah}”(h]”h ]”h"]”h$]”h&]”j÷  aŒlevel”KŒtype”ŒINFO”Œsource”h³Œline”Kuh1j_  hjÇ  hžhhŸh³h KEubaŒtransform_messages”]”Œtransformer”NŒinclude_log”]”Œ
decoration”Nhžhub.