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 406EC1EF958; Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:53:21 +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=1729792401; cv=none; b=RfYLy2i05HNSGqNBjjjPK+DTsIFO40hlLaH8f/9gjMA5D4gMx5x98qIlv+mlU9JwVwH9EvVHr0X/0OwpcxLIPNQ9qkQfaxt9jDcw1ISYq7F0n5qKMMovD+Jog7LcRIH1Jg2srVhp5Yg6HW5Bk9FSYSNncZSLmVfu1nH4gFg0DPU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729792401; c=relaxed/simple; bh=97XRz7peIuJVQC43k4/ySRQsyp3Yj1gdZ3QpFFd9A1s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=MnbMKrTpOurVX430FvAL/lb1ETD6pmqzJeaVRXkPuMAY5XCU5D3Vq+GIB04gkSfVFyF1u/0HqiT489v9l4e92R6+LAG4ORxnbej5fjGIi3ptNwUU7X8rvtNrSU1p8gNumpsIeui2rYvLG8Jqjzl/0eMzOHj8MxUrLSBcCAPYDmg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ZrXkB456; 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="ZrXkB456" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A72AAC4CEE3; Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:53:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1729792400; bh=97XRz7peIuJVQC43k4/ySRQsyp3Yj1gdZ3QpFFd9A1s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZrXkB456NQZ4h8TJqF6MtBj691/WRDz3oXQasTSMa896eo3yzm9xjYg5L9lSyPGqC PTK5WR5TVXdcigZTrfKd73qRxgrhrT7/TISKtc1FfXaCTzkxiMGGFZ56cFzT1y1vDy 9OR5OzLzaLRWr+N1xMTqurE5nRMkyXTFXKengvHAfjcsOBNb+DLkobK2Sqtiu9F2zE 0R7EjPsLAkJJ7q1W2mRYgq6CMuMzmNxfjU2w0phnASRcJWC0iYw9wcdeAbCQQHjEJH 4zJctfOwsoD83uzHPUCnfpov1pdvAS2+X3CCc0KJD/X5MLmfOL+gEASVBxwc1OOTbL 6wrkKaC1TtqIQ== Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:53:19 -0700 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Guenter Roeck , Michael Ellerman , Geert Uytterhoeven , Christoph Hellwig , Kees Cook , Sasha Levin , 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: References: <20241022041243.7f2e53ad@rorschach.local.home> <20241023042004.405056f5@rorschach.local.home> <20241023051914.7f8cf758@rorschach.local.home> <8734km2lt7.fsf@mail.lhotse> <20241024010103.238ef40b@rorschach.local.home> <07422710-19b2-412b-b8d5-7ec51b708693@roeck-us.net> <20241024024928.6fb9d892@rorschach.local.home> 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: <20241024024928.6fb9d892@rorschach.local.home> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 02:49:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Now I have to ask. What's the benefit of pushing to linux-next over > waiting for the zero-day bot? 0-day only does build tests by default, there are many places which have actual run time tests which *run* off of linux-next, those are both bots and human. Granted you can get your own run time tests out of your own branches but that's on each developer to set up and a developer's test exposure of just one branch is small compared to linux-next. For example I've seen obscure bugs creep up on linux-next for modules which only some odd arch or setup was able to capture before which no test we had during development was able to capture. So more exposure to system variability and test variability. The other benefit is you get to see *way ahead of time* possible merge conflicts, and if you can coordinate with the respective maintainers which your code conflicts with, you can prepare so that this is smooth sailing upon pull request to Linus. Luis