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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 EB675C64E7B for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDFE2076E for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="cdxfjIdn" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727428AbgK3N6L (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:58:11 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35324 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725859AbgK3N6L (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:58:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 205312076E; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:57:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1606744650; bh=iyc/zT3Z69BkU1MFcgEbohwAlNY5zEcNlqG/+vhqKxo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cdxfjIdnmP3FHAVkDnr/b4mnJNr3fwiHX+Tf6PDk2ypzF0IXTO17jp+lfmKKerS+X pZEOGQZ91YVEhY6YgPUJrxgbKxC0nZKHeb5/oWxPk3j5DlRjOR/LSKz9RK/D/eLRSc WUKfIHUgVOQ+94hDTyZ5Vq0EOtYRz3MeKKkyUc6k= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:57:25 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Sasha Levin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Mike Christie , 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: References: <20201125153550.810101-22-sashal@kernel.org> <25cd0d64-bffc-9506-c148-11583fed897c@redhat.com> <20201125180102.GL643756@sasha-vm> <9670064e-793f-561e-b032-75b1ab5c9096@redhat.com> <20201129041314.GO643756@sasha-vm> <7a4c3d84-8ff7-abd9-7340-3a6d7c65cfa7@redhat.com> <20201129210650.GP643756@sasha-vm> <17481d8c-c19d-69e3-653d-63a9efec2591@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17481d8c-c19d-69e3-653d-63a9efec2591@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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