From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:50:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190215015020.GJ69686@sasha-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1550088875.2871.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:14:35PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
>On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 20:52 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > 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).
>>
>> 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 :(
>
>0day has xfstests at least, but it's opt-in only (you have to request
>that it be run on your trees). When I did it for the SCSI tree, I had
>to email Fenguangg directly, there wasn't any other way of getting it.
It's very tricky to do even if someone would just run it. I worked with
the xfs folks for quite a while to gather the various configs they want
to use, and to establish the baseline for a few of the stable trees
(some tests are know to fail, etc).
So just running xfstests "blindly" doesn't add much value beyond ltp I
think.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-15 1:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ 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
2019-02-13 19:52 ` Greg KH
2019-02-13 20:14 ` James Bottomley
2019-02-15 1:50 ` Sasha Levin [this message]
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
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=20190215015020.GJ69686@sasha-vm \
--to=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--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).