linux-kernel - Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080430135938.82e46e67.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dan Noe <dpn@...merica.net>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:47:00 -0400
Dan Noe <dpn@...merica.net> wrote:

> On 4/30/2008 16:31, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> <jumps up and down>
> >>
> >> There should be nothing in 2.6.x-rc1 which wasn't in 2.6.x-mm1!
> > 
> > The problem I see with both -mm and linux-next is that they tend to be 
> > better at finding the "physical conflict" kind of issues (ie the merge 
> > itself fails) than the "code looks ok but doesn't actually work" kind of 
> > issue.
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > The tester base is simply too small.
> > 
> > Now, if *that* could be improved, that would be wonderful, but I'm not 
> > seeing it as very likely.
> 
> Perhaps we should be clear and simple about what potential testers 
> should be running at any given point in time.  With -mm, linux-next, 
> linux-2.6, etc, as a newcomer I find it difficult to know where my 
> testing time and energy is best directed.

-mm consists of the sum of

a) the ~80 subsytem maintainers trees (git and quilt)

b) the ~100 subsytem trees which are hosted only in -mm.


linux-next consists of only a)

Soon I shall remove a) from -mm and will replace it with linux-next (this
should be a no-op).

Later, I shall start feeding those 100 random subsystems into linux-next
as well (somehow).

> Is linux-next the right thing to be running at this point?

yes.  85% of the code which goes into Linux goes via the ~80 subsystem
maintainers' trees and is (or should be) in linux-next.  The other 15%
is the hosted-in-mm work.

>  Is there a 
> need for testing in a particular tree (netdev, x86, etc)?

No, please test the sum-of-all-trees in linux-next.  If you hit problems
then, as part of the problem resolving process a developer _might_ ask you
to test one tree specifically, but that would be a pretty unusual
circumstance.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/