[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWMtr5jvPcn2KQvWFCRC1nhcdci_jzXh=M1a12XJTQmKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:50:08 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, paulmck@...nel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests
Hi Linus,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 8:10 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 11:05, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > And that is a good day. Sometimes dozens of builds and hundreds
> > of boot tests fail. Analyzing those failures would be a full-time job.
> > Who do you expect would or should do that ?
>
> Yeah, this is the problem. I think it's only useful if some automation
> (not humans! That would make people burn out immediately) can actually
> pinpoint the trees that introduced the failures.
>
> And I think that would be absolutely lovely. But I suspect the testing
> requirements then have latencies long enough that getting to that
> point might not be entirely realistic.
At least for the build failures, zero day does a good job, and does
inform the author and appropriate maintainer.
Unfortunately maintainers can still ignore any reported issues...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists