Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 09:11:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> much more focused on code that is already in Linus's tree. Like adding
> a missing mutex_unlock() from an error path. How is it helpful to push
> something like that to linux-next?

How is it helpful to not push things to -next?  Pushing your unsent
fixes to a branch that Stephen can pick up costs you approximately
nothing so there's no meaningful downside but perhaps one of these days
some test system will find some issue and it's setting a good example
for those who don't (or can't) have the same detailed testing you have.

> > Note that I do collect known fixes in my 'fixes' and 'testing' branches,
> > primarily to have something clean available to keep testing. Linus even
> > pulled my fixes branch once directly because the responsible maintainers
> > didn't send pull requests to him for weeks.

> Or are you saying that it's helpful to "fix" linux-next before fixing
> Linus's tree? That way others will have the fixes too?

That's also true, it gets the fixes into the hands of people doing -next
testing faster which is hopefully useful to them.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]