On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:33:46AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. 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? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
