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: <2f689438-8626-43d7-a762-cd44b8b05cef@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:46:23 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...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 10:36:13AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 07:22:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'm not trying to change the workflow here, I think all this amounts to
> is just a quality of life improvement for Linus who could ideally merge
> faster if he knows that the pull requests he's looking at will build and
> won't brick his laptop.

I don't understand how creating yet another tree will have that result,
but you have more direct experience with this aspect of the process than
I do.  I do hope that it works out.

> If we start playing games around "must spend X days in linus-next", then
> yes - I agree with you.

I did see the later email indicating that Linus was dead-set against
such a requirement, so there is that.  On the other hand, the subsequent
discussion of publicly documenting which commits had less testing seems
like it might work.  For but one example, I would be suspicious of
commits coming from someone arguing that appearing frequently on that
list is a non-problem.  ;-)

(Yes, yes, there are always exceptions.)

							Thanx, Paul