On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't have an objection to the patch, rather to the methodology where > stable kernels are more or less totally untested. I would like at least the > kvm part to see some testing before it sees users. The process we worked > out with Greg is: > > - Greg rejects kvm patches (but not virtio etc) pointing submitters to the > kvm maintainers > - The kvm maintainers collect stable kvm patches and autotest them > - They then submit the patches to stable@ > > The process is slower than the standard stable process but results in > something that is less likely to fail.
But all the patches tagged for -stable are supposed to be already upstream and therefore well tested. What am I missing? Regards, -- Paolo _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
