On 12/13/2010 11:13 AM, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
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?
They were tested upstream on the upstream code base. That says nothing
about 2.6.35 (well, it says something, but not as much as "2.6.35 with
the patch managed to install and run various tests with several Linux
and Windows guests, and did not cause regressions in the unit test suite").
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
