netdev - Is: automated testing before David M picks them up? Was: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net v2] xen-netback: bookkeep number of active queues in our own module

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140623153151.GA3261@laptop.dumpdata.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:31:51 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	davem@...emloft.net
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
	xen-devel@...ts.xen.org, wei.liu2@...rix.com
Subject: Is: automated testing before David M picks them up? Was: Re:
 [Xen-devel] [PATCH net v2] xen-netback: bookkeep number of active queues in
 our own module

> > Your previous patch didn't do this, and I really am suspect as to
> > whether you functionally tested and verified this aspect of your
> > change at a ll.
> > 
> 
> I've done some testing.
> 

Hey David M,

First of sorry for hijacking this thread - but it seemed like the
perfect thread.

David Vrabel raised an interesting point is that we do have an automated
build/test system that finds bugs - and in fact the 3.16-rc1 netfront
and netback bugs were discovered by that (Boris watches them like
hawks and pounces on them immediately).

That being said - all patches that go through the Xen tree (xen/tip.git)
go through that - and also the ones that maintainers do a git pull
on (say for drivers/block/*). But for xen-net* we don't do that since
well.. it hasn't been a problem in the past and we never formulated
a policy for that. (It was easy with Jens' because he likes the
GIT PULL mechanism and we just created a branch in the tree - and I also
managed to cause some embbarasing bugs so to save my face I am now
testing it religiously).

Having said that - how do you handle such situation with sub-maintainers
wanting to do some testing before they are cleared to go your way?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html