On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 07:41:40PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Some people only put things into -next after they've passed QA (like
> > Steven's thing about 0day) so you'll see branches that are undergoing QA
> > in git before they get merged into the -next branch.

> This is why we have a pre-merge CI SLA of mean latency < 6h for the
> full pre-merge run. This is from the time your patch hits the m-l to
> when the most extensive runs have completed (representing about 1 week
> of machine). Early smoke-test results show up much earlier. In
> practice this means you're almost always limited by review
> turn-around, and not by CI. Exactly to avoid the "the regression fix
> is ready except not yet fully tested" issues.

Right, though CI like that can't do the longer running tests that some
subsystems have for various things.  Don't know if that was the case
here mind you.