From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62B91D32 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF40C4F4 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:43:01 +0100 From: "greg@kroah.com" To: Bart Van Assche Message-ID: <20171030214301.GA10043@kroah.com> References: <20171029100816.pmq5dpmck4cclmdw@thunk.org> <1509385352.3660.35.camel@wdc.com> <20171030212057.GB7379@kroah.com> <1509398856.27259.26.camel@wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1509398856.27259.26.camel@wdc.com> Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Maintainer's Summit 2017 Feedback Thread List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:27:37PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 22:20 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:42:33PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Sun, 2017-10-29 at 06:08 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > Please reply to this thread if you have any comments about how we can > > > > organize the Maintainer's Summit for next year. Given that Linus > > > > seemed fairly happy with how things went, it's likely we will stick > > > > with the same format for next year, but if there are any details about > > > > how we could do things better, I'd greatly appreciate them. > > > > > > Something Linus was very clear about is that regressions are not acceptable. > > > The best way I know to reduce the number of regressions is to increase the > > > efforts on automatic testing. Should the number of tests that is run by the > > > zero-day testing infrastructure be increased? Should more tests be added? > > > > Are there tests out there that 0-day does not currently run? If there > > are any out there that 0-day should run that it does not, you can always > > add new ones, the 0-day client code is on github... > > 0-day is the only test infrastructure of which I know that it is run > automatically for the Linux kernel. There are many others, kernel.ci is one of them, the link Konstantin pointed to has a larger list. > How should a developer decide which project > to add new tests to: 0-day, ltp (Linux Test Project), ktest, xfstests, blktests > or any other Linux kernel testing project that I am not aware of? It depends on what type of test you are wanting to add. And you forgot kselftest :) thanks, greg k-h