Systemd catches up with bind events

Indeed, this is exactly my question: how much were these new uevents used and tested before submission? Again I might have missed something but I find this sentence (and patch) amazing:

> As a short-term "fix", systemd was patched to simply ignore the new events

I thought I read somewhere that every new kernel feature must come with "real" use cases where "real" means running code. Yet the first thing the main and... surprised (!) consumer of this new feature did was... discarding it! How come this was not immediately reverted for obvious lack of testing?

Many kernel patches get months and even sometimes years of out-of-tree test coverage before making it to the main line, some even ship on millions of commercial products before getting merged, so why/how was this patch expedited? Just because it had a small number of lines? I can write a one-line kernel patch with very bad consequences any day :-)

> Perhaps the real lesson here is that the community would be better served by closer relations between the kernel project and projects managing low-level utilities like systemd.

Better relationships can only help but in this particular case it seems like the much more basic, focused and technical question: "What tested this and how?" would have been at least as effective.