Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:50:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:37:38AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > We could add a report for the above, but:
> > 
> > 1. Linus consistently pulls patches that haven't seen the light of day.
> > 2. Linus explicitly objected to making a linux-next a must have.
> > 
> > So unless these results would be actually used, what's the point in
> > writing all of that?
> 
> Yes, without Linus caring we're not going to get our process worked out.
> Not sure how a tree that probably won't have much better latency than
> linux-next is going to fix that, though.

If I recall correctly, one thing Linus asked us to do earlier this year
(ARM Summit) is to CC him on -next failures.  I have been failing to do
this, so I will post myself a note or something to remind me.

After all, if Linus doesn't know of a problem with a set of commits,
how does he know not to pull it?

							Thanx, Paul