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: <ZxosLw0gBG7QFNua@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 04:14:55 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, 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

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 12:08:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 05:49:09AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > So basically, all I need to do to satisfy your request is to add fixes
> > branch that I push to that is pushed after it passes my tests (and not
> > the urgent branch that is still being tested and may have bugs) and
> > then have that be added to linux-next?
> 
> > Now I have been batching changes and not send a pull request right
> > after my tests pass. I've been sending a pull request at most now once
> > a week. So I could have this branch hold the code that's already been
> > tested.
> 
> Yes, that's what pretty much everyone is doing here.  Generally we find
> very few issues this way but it's certainly a non-zero number.

*nod*