On 12/13/2010 06:56 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
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?)
Wait, there's a 34-lt too?
I'd like to have all stable kvms pass some minimum acceptance test, but
that's quiet a lot of trees to maintain. Why do we have to have both
34-lt and 35-lt?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
