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 9711613BA for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47348F1 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:12:39 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Eduardo Valentin Message-ID: <20180910191239.7e558479@vmware.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180910230104.GA1764@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180905101710.73137669@gandalf.local.home> <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <20180907145437.GF16300@sasha-vm> <20180910194310.GV16300@sasha-vm> <20180910164519.6cbcc116@vmware.local.home> <20180910230104.GA1764@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:01:06 -0700 Eduardo Valentin wrote: > One thing that could be done to help is to ask from developers for > some sort of selftest that can be executed by the bots and used while > backporting their fixes to stable. That way the developer can have a way We have that already, it's tools/testing/selftests/... There's a series of ftrace selftests there that I run before running my own more complicated tests. There's still tests I need to move to that selftest directory and out of my own suite, but there's some tests that are too complicated for the the selftests directory. > to tell how to check if the kernel did not regress and whoever wants to > try out the fix can validate it. Of course, can this really fly, that is > a different story. Not sure the community will end up in a place where > all patches post -rc5 requires a selftest :-) > > And of course, there is the other type of regression, which is the fix / > backport causing issue on other parts of the kernel/subsystem. Maybe > forcing each subsystem to have some sort of selftest/sanity check would > be one way to improve the reliability of the results of the bots > overall. Heh, "forcing"? That hasn't been able to work yet ;-) Also, tests for others that don't have the necessary hardware is not going to help much. A lot of regressions show up on hardware that we don't use. -- Steve