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: <CAMuHMdUxrULbo=A77DFDE4ySbii3jSMuh8xVvUXaqyCnwEAU-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:36:20 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 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

Hi Steven,

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 10:20 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:47:09 -0700
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 04:12:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > You mean have everything go into linux-next before going to Linus after -rc1?
> > >
> > > I'm one that doesn't do this. That's because my code in linux-next
> > > after -rc1 is for the next merge window, and the code I send to Linus
> > > is only fixes for code I sent before -rc1. I tend to keep an "urgent"
> > > and "core" branch. My "core" branch is everything I plan to send in the
> > > next merge window and goes into linux-next (via being pulled into my
> > > for-next branch). After I send my pull request to Linus, and he pulls
> > > it in the merge window, that "core" branch becomes my "urgent" branch.
> >
> > You can easily have two branches in linux-next.  Many trees do that.
> > It is also a really nice warning about self-conflicts.
>
> I actually do have several branches in linux-next. But they are all
> topic branches. My urgent branches usually mirror them (by naming
> convention). My scripts pull my for-next branches together and then I
> push them up.
>
> I did push urgent branches to linux-next some time back, but never
> found any advantage in doing so, so I stopped doing it. As the code in
> my urgent branches are just fixing the stuff already in Linus's tree,
> they seldom ever have any effect on other subsystems. My new work does
> benefit from being in linux-next. But since I don't find more testing
> in linux-next for things that are already in Linus's tree, I still
> don't see how its worth the time to put my urgent work there.
>
> To put it this way. The bugs I'm fixing was for code in linux-next
> where the bugs were never found. They only appeared when they went into
> Linus's tree. So why put the fixes in linux-next, if it didn't catch
> the bugs I fixed in the first place?

Hmmm...

Your arguments sound very similar to those being used in recent
discussions about not posting patches for public review...

Please follow the process! ;-)

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