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 76A55265E for ; Mon, 14 May 2018 08:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.bootlin.com (mail.bootlin.com [62.4.15.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E12189 for ; Mon, 14 May 2018 08:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 10:12:37 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Geert Uytterhoeven Message-ID: <20180514101237.5df1e0d7@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: References: <20180502194632.GB18390@sasha-vm> <20180503020550.GP2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503031000.GC29205@thunk.org> <0276fcda-0385-8f22-dbdb-e063f7ed8bbe@roeck-us.net> <20180503224217.GR2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com> <20180509084440.GW13402@sirena.org.uk> <20180510164722.GH8514@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "w@1wt.eu" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 14 May 2018 10:00:30 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Sasha Levin > wrote: > > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:44:50PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > >>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:38:21PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > >>> - A merge window commit spent 50% more days, on average, in -next than a -rc > >>> commit. > >> > >>So it *used* to be the case that after the merge window, I would queue > >>up bug fixes for the next merge window. Greg K-H pushed for me to > >>send them to Linus sooner, instead of waiting for the next merge > >>window. TBH, it's actually easier for me to just wait until the next > >>merge window, but please understand that there are multiple pressures > >>on maintainers going on here, and the latest efforts to try to use > >>AUTOSEL is just the most recent pressure placed on maintainers. > >> > >>The other thing is that when there is a regression users who are > >>testing linux-next want it fixed *fast*. That's considered more > >>important to them than waiting for one, perfect patch, just to keep > >>AUTOSEL happy. > >> > >>So please understand that when you say that maintainers *need* to do X > >>or Y, that there you are not the only one standing in line putting > >>pressures on maintainers saying they *need* to do something. And > >>quite frankly, I consider keeping people who are nice enough to test > >>linux-next happy to be **far** more important than AUTOSEL. > > > > Ted, > > > > I'm not at all asking to wait before adding the patches to your tree, > > or to -next. I'm asking to hold on to them a bit longer before you > > push them to Linus because I can show that patches that don't spend > > enough time in -next are more likely to introduce bugs. > > > > Yes, linux-next users want it fixed *now* and I completely agree it > > should be done that way, but the fix should not be immediately pushed to > > Linus as well. > > > > I've just finished reading an interesting article on LWN about the > > PostgreSQL fsync issues (https://lwn.net/Articles/752952/). If you > > look at Willy's commit, he wrote the final version of it about 5 days > > ago, Jeff merged it in 3 days ago, and Linus merged it in the tree > > today. Did it spend any time getting -next testing? nope. > > > > What's worse is that that commit is tagged for stable, which means > > that (given Greg's schedule) it may find it's way to -stable users > > even before some -next users/bots had a chance to test it out. > > I just noticed a case where a commit was picked up for stable, while a > bot had flagged it as a build regression 18 hours earlier (with a CC to > lkml). Also, this patch has been on a tree that I know is tested by Fengguang's robots for more than a week (and in linux-next for 2 days, which, I agree, is probably not enough), and still, I only received the bug report when the patch reached mainline. Are there tests that are only run on Linus' tree? > > So it looks like the script for backporting commits should be enhanced to > check for this (searching for the commit ID in my email archive found the > bot report). > > Thanks! > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert >