On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/13/2010 11:12 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> >> > - Greg rejects kvm patches (but not virtio etc) pointing submitters >> > to the kvm maintainers >> > - The kvm maintainers collect stable kvm patches and autotest them >> >> As I understand this patch came in this way for .36 >> (I took it from .36-stable) > > The patch was autotested for .36-stable, it wasn't autotested for > .35-stable. It will very likely work (this isn't code that changes a lot), > but still. > >> > - They then submit the patches to stable@ >> >> Do you want to do the autotest explicitely for .35 too and no automatic >> backports and do the same procedure as for newer kernels? >> >> I can do that, but you would need to do it for a long time. > > Yes. In fact it gets more important as time goes by, since as time goes by > patches are more likely to cause regressions due to changes in the code > base.
My workflow is largely the same as Andi's -- in that I'm using patches that have already been nominated for other stable releases and putting them on the 34-lt (longterm) as appropriate. Are you interested in also doing the same thing for 34-lt (i.e. you generating a 34 specific, pre-tested patchset instead of me doing the backports from other stable trees?) Thanks, Paul. > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
