Hi!

> >Well, 0day, kernelci etc... is nice... until the change is in the
> >driver. Most of the kernel are drivers, remember?
> >
> >I don't know. I'd say that if patch is important enough for -stable,
> >there should be someone testing it. For core kernel changes, that can
> >be 0day bot, but for drivers...
> >
> 
> For my part I am just glad that we were able to pick up a fix in xhci code
> just last week, tested or not, from -stable, instead of having to track it
> down ourselves. Similar for many other driver patches which _do_ affect us
> (like the flurry of ext4 patches this week). Granted, there are lots of
> patches which we don't use/need, but even there it is surprising how many
> problems are found with existing testing.
> 
> For anyone interested in making sure that obscure (whatever that means)
> drivers are tested for stable releases, but does not want to spend time on it,
> all I can recommend is to implement qemu support for it and let me know,
> and I'll be happy to add a respective test to my test farm.

Umm. Yes, qemu support for every driver would be nice, but will not happen.

> However, ultimately, stable release candidates are public. Everyone is
> invited to test them. Anyone interested in a specific release and
> driver

Yes, they are public. SubmittingPatches says every patch should be
tested, and that's clearly not happening for -stable. And I'd like
those patch marked such.

> >And problem exists on mainline, too.
> >
> >Hmm. Patch for obscure driver. Wow, nice, is WellKnownName actually
> >using that driver? Aha, no, he is not; he is doing global
> >search&replace, and did not test the patch...
> >
> 
> Ah, like me with the strncpy(x, y, strlen(y)) -> memcpy() replacements
> I did a week or so ago ? You are right, I only compile tested those and
> otherwise trusted my ability to understand C code. If that caused any
> problems, please let me know, and hopefully I'll be able to learn something
> from it.

Yes, such stuff. No, I was not talking about you. I did not want to
give concrete example, but...

# > get_monotonic_boottime() is deprecated, so let's convert this to
# > the simpler ktime_get_boot_ns().
# >
# > Signed-off-by: <redacted>
# 
# Have you tested it?
#
...
#   > -	   curr_boot = timespec_to_ns(&boot_time) * cpus;
# 
# Original code is pretty weird (notice the * cpus), so I'm
# double-checking.

Yes, often you can guess that patch was probably not tested, but it
would be nice to have

Tested: compile

annotation to take away the guesswork. It took me a while an some head
scratching in this concrete example, and it is not first time this
happened.

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html