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 CF864ABC for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:43:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com (mail-pf1-f193.google.com [209.85.210.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 777E32D5 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:43:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id x17-v6so7670575pfh.5 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 15:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:43:46 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <20180907224346.GA21546@roeck-us.net> References: <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <2534be10-2e70-6932-39c1-7caca2cff044@roeck-us.net> <4990d2c1-6f26-0500-9afa-986a61fce3bf@redhat.com> <20180907150623.GH16300@sasha-vm> <9fb15d7c-c59f-ee21-9c30-6d81d53a1456@redhat.com> <20180907160945.GI16300@sasha-vm> <20180907202328.GE25756@kroah.com> <20180907211341.GJ16300@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 03:27:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:13 PM Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss > wrote: > > > > 1. Grab a batch of ~2-3 week old commits from Linus's tree. > > 2. Review, basic tests and send stable-rc notification. > > Side note: maybe the stable grabbing and testing could be automated? > > IOW, right now the stable people intentionally (generally) wait a week > before they even start. Maybe there could be an automated queue for > "this has been marked for stable" (and the whole "fixes:" magic that > you guys already trigger on) that gets applied to the previous stable > tree, and starts testing immediately. > > Because one of the patterns we *do* obviously see is that something > was fine in mainline, but then broke in stable because of an unforseen > lack of depdenencies. Sure, it's probably pretty rare (and *many* > dependencies willl show up as an actual conflict), but I think the > times it does happen it's particularly painful because it can be so > non-obvious. > > So maybe an automated "linux-next" that starts happening *before* the > rc stage would catch some things? > And it does, as soon as Greg publishes a set of patches. At the very least 0day runs on those, as well as my builders. There is a question of scalability, though. I am sure that will improve over time as more test resources become available, but six stable releases plus mainline plus next plus whatever contributing branches covered by 0day and others does take a lot of resources. Personally I would suggest to further improve test coverage, not to add more branches to test. More hardware for sure, but also adding more tests such as the network testing suggested by Sasha. Guenter