Hi Ingo, On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:44:28 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > In terms of test coverage, at least for our trees, less than 1% of > the bugs we handle get reported in a linux-next context - and most > of the bugs that get reported (against say the scheduler tree) are > related to rare architectures. I expect that most bugs get reported and fixed before code gets to linux-next (in fact one of the prerequisites for being in linux-next is that code has been tested as well as possible). > In fact, i checked, there were _zero_ x86 bugs reported against > linux-next and solved against it between v2.6.30-rc1 and v2.6.30: > > git log --grep=next -i v2.6.30-rc1..v2.6.30 arch/x86/ > > Doing it over the full cycle shows one commit altogether - a Xen > build failure. In fact, i just checked the whole stabilization cycle > for the whole kernel (v2.6.30-rc1..v2.6.30-final), and there were > only 5 linux-next originated patches, most of them build failures. Nice set of figures. For some other context, between April 6 and June 9 (2.6.30-rc1 to 2.6.30) I sent 50 emails with subjects like "linux-next: xxx tree build failure". What results from those emails? I sometimes don't even hear back. Almost all of the failures get fixed. A lot of these probably also get discovered independently. I don't really care as long as they do get fixed. One of those failures was a sparc build failure due to a change in the tip-core tree (see commit d2de688891909b148efe83a6fc9520a9cd6015f0). Another report produced commit 27b19565fe4ca5b0e9d2ae98ce4b81ca728bf445. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/