From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
ksummit@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Quality standards for embargoed code
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:47:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7b680ae-915b-4783-a177-117553356df6@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2023081510-monument-sagging-2125@gregkh>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1960 bytes --]
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> Anyway, the main reason we have NOT added testers (nor allowed
> developers to use the test systems from their employer) is that those
> test systems are able to be accessed by a huge/unknown number of other
> people, none of who should have access to the potential changes under
> development.
> If that can be solved, with a "private" kernelci/lkft/openssf/whatever
> test instance, that would be wonderful. Ideally it should be the
> responsibility of the hardware vendor for which we are fixing their
> broken hardware with kernel changes to provide this for us.
I think we could usefully have such systems or scripts available which
people could use at their option as part of setting the baseline,
ideally something based on free software so people can stand the stack
up themselves if they want. Probably there will be occasions when it
gets used, if only by upstream people, and it's less stop energy to
point people at something they can concretely use rather than a list of
tests which people might not already know how to run. If it's just a
list of requirements there's more chance people might mess up running in
ways that non-obviously don't actually test the thing.
> I know that Linaro has made some lkft access available to some of us in
> the past with "private" test systems, but that was a long time ago and I
> don't think I have access to that anymore with their most recent rewrite
> of their backend. Oh, and their systems primarily test ARM cpus, of
> which we generally do NOT use the embargoed-hw system because those CPUs
> usually don't have these types of problems :)
They do have a bunch of qemu stuff (though it's not super comprehensive
in terms of things like firmware combos since they're more focused on
runtime testing) and while that's not the world emulation would catch
some of the wider spread issues we see. OTOH the infra software isn't
published.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-15 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-15 16:58 Sasha Levin
2023-08-15 17:18 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-15 18:10 ` Sasha Levin
2023-08-15 18:40 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-15 17:19 ` Dave Hansen
2023-08-15 18:19 ` Sasha Levin
2023-08-15 18:34 ` Dave Hansen
2023-08-15 19:57 ` Greg KH
2023-08-15 20:47 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2023-08-15 21:11 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f7b680ae-915b-4783-a177-117553356df6@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=ksummit@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox