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 ESMTP id 95455918 for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 00:37:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com (mail-oa0-f51.google.com [209.85.219.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B3662019C for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 00:37:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id n16so737450oag.24 for ; Sun, 04 May 2014 17:37:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jwboyer@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <53664E31.6030706@roeck-us.net> References: <53662254.9060100@huawei.com> <53664E31.6030706@roeck-us.net> Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:37:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Josh Boyer To: Guenter Roeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: lizf.kern@gmail.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 05/04/2014 05:54 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:> >>> - Testing stable kernels >>> >>> The testing of stable kernels when a new version is under review seems >>> quite limited. We have Dave's Trinity and Fengguang's 0day, but they >>> are run on mainline/for-next only. Would be useful to also have them >>> run on stable kernels? >> >> >> Yes, but I don't think that's the main problem. The regressions we >> see in stable releases tend to come from patches that trinity and 0day >> don't cover. Things like backlights not working, or specific devices >> acting strangely, etc. >> >> Put another way, if trinity and 0day are running on mainline and >> linux-next already, and we still see those issues introduced into a >> stable kernel later, then trinity and 0day didn't find the original >> problem to being with. >> > > Not necessarily. Sometimes bugs are introduced by missing patches or > bad/incoomplete backports. Sure, I catch the compile errors, and others > run basic real-system testing, at least with x86, but we could use more > run-time testing, especially on non-x86 architectures. Right, I agreed we should run more testing on stable. I just don't think it will result in a massive amount of issues found. Trinity and 0day aren't going to have the same impact on stable kernels that they do upstream. Simply setting expectations. josh