On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either... Patch 3/5 in
Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
Dunno, 120 lines of new code? Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't see
why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it without
any kind of testing. Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking things are
low, but stuff like locking rules might have changed since older
releases like 5.4 or 4.19. The autoselection bot does not know that, it
basically crosses fingers that these larger-scale changes cause the
patches not to apply or compile anymore.
Maybe it's just me, but the whole "autoselect stable patches" and
release them is very suspicious. You are basically crossing fingers and
are ready to release any kind of untested crap, because you do not trust
maintainers of marking stable patches right. Only then, when a backport
is broken, it's maintainers who get the blame and have to fix it.
Personally I don't care because I have asked you to opt KVM out of
autoselection, but this is the opposite of what Greg brags about when he
touts the virtues of the upstream stable process over vendor kernels.
Paolo
the series might be (vhost scsi: fix cmd completion race), so I can
understand including 1/5 and 2/5 just in case, but not the rest. Does
the bot not understand diffstats?
Not on their own, no. What's wrong with the diffstats?
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
