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: <10b0cb74-2068-4819-ac91-fcf98ca8d96c@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:47:38 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...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 10:50:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:37:38AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > We could add a report for the above, but:
> > 
> > 1. Linus consistently pulls patches that haven't seen the light of day.
> > 2. Linus explicitly objected to making a linux-next a must have.
> > 
> > So unless these results would be actually used, what's the point in
> > writing all of that?
> 
> Yes, without Linus caring we're not going to get our process worked out.
> Not sure how a tree that probably won't have much better latency than
> linux-next is going to fix that, though.

If I recall correctly, one thing Linus asked us to do earlier this year
(ARM Summit) is to CC him on -next failures.  I have been failing to do
this, so I will post myself a note or something to remind me.

After all, if Linus doesn't know of a problem with a set of commits,
how does he know not to pull it?

							Thanx, Paul