Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: vmx, pmu: accept 0 for absent MSRs when host-initiated

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

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...