Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper

[Greg KH]

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