From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:25:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190213192512.GH69686@sasha-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190213091803.GA2308@kroah.com>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> Best effort testing in timely manner is good, but a good way to
>> improve confidence in stable kernel releases is a publicly
>> available list of tests that the release went through.
>
>We have that, you aren't noticing them...
This is one of the biggest things I want to address: there is a
disconnect between the stable kernel testing story and the tests the fs/
and mm/ folks expect to see here.
On one had, the stable kernel folks see these kernels go through entire
suites of testing by multiple individuals and organizations, receiving
way more coverage than any of Linus's releases.
On the other hand, things like LTP and selftests tend to barely scratch
the surface of our mm/ and fs/ code, and the maintainers of these
subsystems do not see LTP-like suites as something that adds significant
value and ignore them. Instead, they have a (convoluted) set of testing
they do with different tools and configurations that qualifies their
code as being "tested".
So really, it sounds like a low hanging fruit: we don't really need to
write much more testing code code nor do we have to refactor existing
test suites. We just need to make sure the right tests are running on
stable kernels. I really want to clarify what each subsystem sees as
"sufficient" (and have that documented somewhere).
--
Thanks,
Sasha
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-12 17:00 [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees Sasha Levin
2019-02-12 21:32 ` Steve French
2019-02-13 7:20 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-02-13 7:37 ` Greg KH
2019-02-13 9:01 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-02-13 9:18 ` Greg KH
2019-02-13 19:25 ` Sasha Levin [this message]
2019-02-13 19:52 ` Greg KH
2019-02-13 20:14 ` James Bottomley
2019-02-15 1:50 ` Sasha Levin
2019-02-15 2:48 ` James Bottomley
2019-02-16 18:28 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-02-21 15:34 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-02-21 18:52 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-03-20 3:46 ` Jon Masters
2019-03-20 5:06 ` Greg KH
2019-03-20 6:14 ` Jon Masters
2019-03-20 6:28 ` Greg KH
2019-03-20 6:32 ` Jon Masters
2022-03-08 9:32 ` Amir Goldstein
2022-03-08 10:08 ` Greg KH
2022-03-08 11:04 ` Amir Goldstein
2022-03-08 15:42 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-08 19:06 ` Sasha Levin
2022-03-09 18:57 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-11 5:23 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-03-11 12:00 ` Jan Kara
2022-03-11 20:52 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-11 22:04 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-03-11 22:36 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-04-27 18:58 ` Amir Goldstein
2022-05-01 16:25 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-10 23:59 ` Steve French
2022-03-11 0:36 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-03-11 20:54 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-08 16:40 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-03-08 17:16 ` Amir Goldstein
2022-03-09 0:43 ` Dave Chinner
2022-03-09 18:41 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-09 18:49 ` Josef Bacik
2022-03-09 19:00 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-09 21:19 ` Josef Bacik
2022-03-10 1:28 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-10 18:51 ` Josef Bacik
2022-03-10 22:41 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-11 12:09 ` Jan Kara
2022-03-11 18:32 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-12 2:07 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-14 22:45 ` btrfs profiles to test was: (Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees) Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-15 14:23 ` Josef Bacik
2022-03-15 17:42 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-03-29 20:24 ` [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees Amir Goldstein
2022-04-10 15:11 ` Amir Goldstein
2022-03-08 10:54 ` Jan Kara
2022-03-09 0:02 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190213192512.GH69686@sasha-vm \
--to=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=smfrench@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).