Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
	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, 20 Mar 2019 07:28:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190320062824.GA11080@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <134e0fe1-e468-5243-90b5-ccb81d63e9a1@jonmasters.org>

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:14:09AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 3/20/19 1:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:46:09PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> On 2/13/19 2:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>
> >>>> 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).
> >>>
> >>> kernel.ci and 0-day and Linaro are starting to add the fs and mm tests
> >>> to their test suites to address these issues (I think 0-day already has
> >>> many of them).  So this is happening, but not quite obvious.  I know I
> >>> keep asking Linaro about this :(
> >>
> >> We're working on investments for LDCG[0] in 2019 that include kernel CI
> >> changes for server use cases. Please keep us informed of what you folks
> >> ultimately want to see, and I'll pass on to the steering committee too.
> >>
> >> Ultimately I've been pushing for a kernel 0-day project for Arm. That's
> >> probably going to require a lot of duplicated effort since the original
> >> 0-day project isn't open, but creating an open one could help everyone.
> > 
> > Why are you trying to duplicate it on your own?  That's what kernel.ci
> > should be doing, please join in and invest in that instead.  It's an
> > open source project with its own governance and needs sponsors, why
> > waste time and money doing it all on your own?
> 
> To clarify, I'm pushing for investment in kernel.ci to achieve that goal
> that it could provide the same 0-day capability for Arm and others.

Great, that's what I was trying to suggest :)

> It'll ultimately result in duplicated effort vs if 0-day were open.

"Half" of 0-day is open, but it's that other half that is still
needed...

thanks,

greg k-h