On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:52:11PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
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).
I thought that earlier Sasha said that this patch was needed as a prerequisite patch for a later fix, right? If not, sorry, I've lost the train of thought in this thread...
thanks,
greg k-h