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: <2a2f4de7-ee32-4a71-b470-cf155e1097ee@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:24:29 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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

On 10/22/24 12:33, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 04:12:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:48:34 -0700
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> How about this, instead: no one sends -rc1 PRs to Linus that didn't go
>>>> through -next. Just have a bot that replies to all PRs with a health
>>>> check, and Linus can pull it if he thinks it looks good.
>>>
>>> Not just -rc1, otherwise agreed.
>>
>> You mean have everything go into linux-next before going to Linus after -rc1?
> 
> It seems like the most useful signal would be for the initial PR for the
> merge window. After that it becomes a lot of fixes that didn't get tons
> of soak time in -next, etc.
> 

FWIW, there is also the pending-fixes sub-branch of linux-next, but from my
experience the build and test failures observed in it are pretty much
ignored, just like the build and test failures in linux-next itself.

Guenter