From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DAA81B5338; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729608384; cv=none; b=ESkvAk2sgHYS6dz/Df+X+YP/yttXlikf8VZAuIyysCP9tF5apnN/VC71wU+fuXcAbZzykwuQxjZjy7RYEY1iPvA1Kqm8qAURjeKFjdGDsgB97Cfu1v3dZU3+QV4M02UUJ0S8abYKEXYvFHQzcjlwXVj8tn5Ob21dCDaw1gIp6nE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729608384; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Fh2C4xJGXENNWpZqv80RU12bD646b4685Dm9INfr9ZQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BILXVuLushScgKXy9Ia0os95RMKXVNJpsF6zV7F4dLx38cvQoHyTds0Yiyqv1hbFfSVTV1PrJozBgwUOl+01R1+CpwuyKuDqc5O7iktcn6oDKZn+MfCXZxhrsKJAbP8JRpqaZ5vEohrcTcvfiI4eoOhBqDHs+Q/BArZY1VKdiXc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=LX/Eqwo1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="LX/Eqwo1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EEE07C4CEE4; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:46:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1729608384; bh=Fh2C4xJGXENNWpZqv80RU12bD646b4685Dm9INfr9ZQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LX/Eqwo1+oPZDboZtl67WIeVZH4JpA1xFxlzDwIqeenFldSA8EGtFOprqEeqfcBAH QyLg/Ur8c1PYARPjJufyewnFjMqIbIK3r2USWWDc+gQGeFcZEA/aQyQaqmfQ/n7QKv ikDAbxYHvfCi7y00UeXaegHx9sdjtzEryVevMoWARWBXVU3SFvicyNfHndUkMwtNIH 4JpT/SI9p242Z0Ul6yWkD2scNnoHoEWnuaT1+eR4mjmdmtHIf0hQlxla5WAw8HPnkF 7RDkGwkqEnBncb+mXUwAyaFdsIhzufrBhJyBsc92nLSDh5SZHroVfbgoxzkg5zyykY McdCP/NgEnOhQ== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 93563CE0A48; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:46:23 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Sasha Levin Cc: Jiri Kosina , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests Message-ID: <2f689438-8626-43d7-a762-cd44b8b05cef@paulmck-laptop> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <53b980b3-6bdb-4331-a627-f6e775d23eb1@paulmck-laptop> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:36:13AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 07:22:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 02:06:46PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > I have to ask... > > > > > > > > Wouldn't more people testing -next result in more pressure to fix > > > > linux-next problems quickly? > > > > > > I believe I brought up pretty much exactly this at this year's maintainer > > > summit. > > > > > > >From the discussion it turned out the many people believe that this > > > investing into this is probably not worth it, as it will require much more > > > continous, never-ending effort (for which there are probably not enough > > > resources) than just dealing with the fallout once during the -rc1+ phase. > > > > Thank you for the response and the information! > > > > But why won't this same issues apply just as forcefully to a new > > linus-next tree? > > > > Full disclosure: Testing and tracking down bugs in -next can be a bit of > > a hassle, to be sure, but I expect to continue to do so. For one thing, > > dealing with -next is way easier than testing patches on the various > > mailing lists. > > I'm not trying to change the workflow here, I think all this amounts to > is just a quality of life improvement for Linus who could ideally merge > faster if he knows that the pull requests he's looking at will build and > won't brick his laptop. I don't understand how creating yet another tree will have that result, but you have more direct experience with this aspect of the process than I do. I do hope that it works out. > If we start playing games around "must spend X days in linus-next", then > yes - I agree with you. I did see the later email indicating that Linus was dead-set against such a requirement, so there is that. On the other hand, the subsequent discussion of publicly documenting which commits had less testing seems like it might work. For but one example, I would be suspicious of commits coming from someone arguing that appearing frequently on that list is a non-problem. ;-) (Yes, yes, there are always exceptions.) Thanx, Paul