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: <ZyD6QioGPyJUXI5r@sashalap>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:07:46 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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 29, 2024 at 01:46:23PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>Hmmm. After all those mails in this thread improving (and maybe even
>separating & somewhat automating[1]) pending-fixes to me still sounds
>like time better spend, as then more things could tested before they
>even read a PR; but yes, I understand, the timing/order of merges can
>mess things up, so testing on PR time has benefits, too.

Automating how? Having it be generated more often?

>Maybe I'm just biased, as I could need a better working pending-fixes
>for regression tracking[2], as that allows me to ensure regression fixes
>are on the right track (which usually is the current merge window and
>not the next).

I'd love to throw the linus-next away once I find it useless :)

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha