On 29/11/20 22:06, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
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
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.
Plus all the testing we have for the stable trees, yes. It goes beyond
just compiling at this point.
Your very own co-workers (https://cki-project.org/) are pushing hard on
this effort around stable kernel testing, and statements like these
aren't helping anyone.
I am not aware of any public CI being done _at all_ done on vhost-scsi,
by CKI or everyone else. So autoselection should be done only on
subsystems that have very high coverage in CI.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
