From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA998C19437 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F81F22C97 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730953AbgLDPt5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:49:57 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:43368 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727347AbgLDPtx (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:49:53 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:49:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1607096952; bh=Ow4G56Wm/9Nfwmkt+etIYtnevqjnp+bk9nlnFoU8UQk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RQjC41VglvvhGwAWU6XRMSSSMnzpp3JOxd1JNCylOQy/kEvUZ/ewOpyE/wOqQW/7j 878hxCTLNSyKUEwvhP2o5iMZhV6F/W385j25+TYB/QZlSyrDcFDoYe0rgky3hMcZ/P Nspyf5ZojFO6emRkgFk9EeTs/eGl6Km4CtSDUo55DCdJh1xlIRobP9bnqaHpnGlsvQ 4TMZgz2q7uNKvG3exf/XFGcNg+7tXIby71tbnOypYg4j4+erSHdVGjPaDmkBXDFxXN ICWQyjSwysK+pQXANGOHy6hLAsiPnYnR3u4UiD59Fj+QIoSr52SNzsJ+5WH4vYhD2/ XjdW17iIoYZ9Q== From: Sasha Levin To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Mike Christie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Jason Wang , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Stefan Hajnoczi , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper Message-ID: <20201204154911.GZ643756@sasha-vm> References: <20201129041314.GO643756@sasha-vm> <7a4c3d84-8ff7-abd9-7340-3a6d7c65cfa7@redhat.com> <20201129210650.GP643756@sasha-vm> <20201130173832.GR643756@sasha-vm> <238cbdd1-dabc-d1c1-cff8-c9604a0c9b95@redhat.com> <9ec7dff6-d679-ce19-5e77-f7bcb5a63442@oracle.com> <4c1b2bc7-cf50-4dcd-bfd4-be07e515de2a@redhat.com> <20201130235959.GS643756@sasha-vm> <6c49ded5-bd8f-f219-0c51-3500fd751633@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6c49ded5-bd8f-f219-0c51-3500fd751633@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be >>dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply) >>so the burden on maintainers is minimal. > >The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable". That They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything, some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long. >(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and >end. I don't see the need to second guess them. This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting issues to them? Are you saying that you have always gotten stable tags right? never missed a stable tag where one should go? -- Thanks, Sasha From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AABC433FE for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8473F22C7D for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8473F22C7D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312072E2E0; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2k8GSxdOiyjJ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46A6204C6; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A158FC0FA7; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFA2C013B for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E6B873E6 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fz0PJXwuGu66 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F478730D for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:49:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1607096952; bh=Ow4G56Wm/9Nfwmkt+etIYtnevqjnp+bk9nlnFoU8UQk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RQjC41VglvvhGwAWU6XRMSSSMnzpp3JOxd1JNCylOQy/kEvUZ/ewOpyE/wOqQW/7j 878hxCTLNSyKUEwvhP2o5iMZhV6F/W385j25+TYB/QZlSyrDcFDoYe0rgky3hMcZ/P Nspyf5ZojFO6emRkgFk9EeTs/eGl6Km4CtSDUo55DCdJh1xlIRobP9bnqaHpnGlsvQ 4TMZgz2q7uNKvG3exf/XFGcNg+7tXIby71tbnOypYg4j4+erSHdVGjPaDmkBXDFxXN ICWQyjSwysK+pQXANGOHy6hLAsiPnYnR3u4UiD59Fj+QIoSr52SNzsJ+5WH4vYhD2/ XjdW17iIoYZ9Q== From: Sasha Levin To: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper Message-ID: <20201204154911.GZ643756@sasha-vm> References: <20201129041314.GO643756@sasha-vm> <7a4c3d84-8ff7-abd9-7340-3a6d7c65cfa7@redhat.com> <20201129210650.GP643756@sasha-vm> <20201130173832.GR643756@sasha-vm> <238cbdd1-dabc-d1c1-cff8-c9604a0c9b95@redhat.com> <9ec7dff6-d679-ce19-5e77-f7bcb5a63442@oracle.com> <4c1b2bc7-cf50-4dcd-bfd4-be07e515de2a@redhat.com> <20201130235959.GS643756@sasha-vm> <6c49ded5-bd8f-f219-0c51-3500fd751633@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6c49ded5-bd8f-f219-0c51-3500fd751633@redhat.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Mike Christie X-BeenThere: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux virtualization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "Virtualization" On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be >>dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply) >>so the burden on maintainers is minimal. > >The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable". That They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything, some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long. >(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and >end. I don't see the need to second guess them. This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting issues to them? Are you saying that you have always gotten stable tags right? never missed a stable tag where one should go? -- Thanks, Sasha _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization