On 30/11/20 14:28, Greg KH wrote:
Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:
Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
"-stable" tree:
- It must be obviously correct and tested.
- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
We do obviously take patches that are bigger than 100 lines, as there
are always exceptions to the rules here. Look at all of the
spectre/meltdown patches as one such example. Should we refuse a patch
just because it fixes a real issue yet is 101 lines long?
Every patch should be "fixing a real issue"---even a new feature. But
the larger the patch, the more the submitters and maintainers should be
trusted rather than a bot. The line between feature and bugfix
_sometimes_ is blurry, I would say that in this case it's not, and it
makes me question how the bot decided that this patch would be
acceptable for stable (which AFAIK is not something that can be answered).
Paolo
