linux-kernel - Re: linux-next requiements (Was: Re: [tip:x86/ptrace] ptrace: Add support for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE

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: <20100222102745.GJ20844@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:27:45 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	roland@...hat.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	hjl.tools@...il.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next requiements (Was: Re: [tip:x86/ptrace] ptrace: Add
 support for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET)

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:07:10 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > I'll keep them in tip:master to get them tested, but note that i cannot 
> > push any of these patches into linux-next until this is fixed, as 
> > linux-next requires all architectures to build, with no regard to which 
> > architectures are tested by kernel testers in practice.
> 
> I merely expect people not to push known broken code into linux-next.

FYI, this 'mere' kind of indiscriminate definition of 'breakage' is what i am 
talking about.

The occasional driver build breakage can be tested relatively easily: one 
allyesconfig build and it's done. Build testing 22 architectures is 
exponentially harder: it requires the setup (and constant maintenance) of 
zillions of tool-chains, plus the build time is significant as well.

So this kind of linux-next requirement causes the over-testing of code that 
doesnt get all that much active usage, plus it increases build testing 
overhead 10-fold. That, by definition, causes the under-testing of code that 
_does_ matter a whole lot more to active testers of the Linux kernel.

Which is a problem, obviously.

	Ingo
--
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/