linux-kernel - Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

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: <a627c5bd-e219-4d0e-a2d9-8dda44143d8c@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:22:12 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull
 requests

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 02:06:46PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > I have to ask...
> > 
> > Wouldn't more people testing -next result in more pressure to fix
> > linux-next problems quickly?
> 
> I believe I brought up pretty much exactly this at this year's maintainer 
> summit.
> 
> >From the discussion it turned out the many people believe that this 
> investing into this is probably not worth it, as it will require much more 
> continous, never-ending effort (for which there are probably not enough 
> resources) than just dealing with the fallout once during the -rc1+ phase.

Thank you for the response and the information!

But why won't this same issues apply just as forcefully to a new
linus-next tree?

Full disclosure:  Testing and tracking down bugs in -next can be a bit of
a hassle, to be sure, but I expect to continue to do so.  For one thing,
dealing with -next is way easier than testing patches on the various
mailing lists.

							Thanx, Paul