[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqtMmAiOvJbmHCaP@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:30:32 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: vmx, pmu: accept 0 for absent MSRs when
host-initiated
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 6/15/22 20:52, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I completely agree on needing better transparency for the lifecycle of patches
> > going through the KVM tree. First and foremost, there need to be formal, documented
> > rules for the "official" kvm/* branches, e.g. everything in kvm/queue passes ABC
> > tests, everything in kvm/next also passes XYZ tests. That would also be a good
> > place to document expectations, how things works, etc...
>
> Agreed. I think this is a more general problem with Linux development and I
> will propose this for maintainer summit.
I believe the documentation side of things is an acknowledged gap, people just need
to actually write the documentation, e.g. Boris and Thomas documented the tip-tree
under Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst and stubbed in maintainer-handbooks.rst.
As for patch lifecycle, I would love to have something like tip-bot (can we just
steal whatever scripts they use?) that explicitly calls out the branch, commit,
committer, date, etc... IMO that'd pair nicely with adding kvm/pending, as the
bot/script could provide updates when a patch is first added to kvm/pending, then
again when it got moved to kvm/queue or dropped because it was broken, etc...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists