From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD0AC282CA for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD05222C1 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:33:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="i8VcmaYs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731515AbfBLVdK (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:33:10 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]:44156 "EHLO mail-pl1-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726882AbfBLVdJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:33:09 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f178.google.com with SMTP id p4so68981plq.11; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:33:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2EB2mSUQYkL+xTBpqNZsXnjirCmnpjUHujzlNdBQPfo=; b=i8VcmaYsUJ7gdyey42wbhhhZFGwy9JR9hYCv0ohHCTNA46c3mpo4weoJnqOZnDc648 Nb6/pVvvgkqdl4e8J6VDOFmLNiQ23V6rPJb+HtcOUGCLc5RJsov6Wv0JcWfbmAmq/uiu U2jej8vmmlEn+bfG9v5BtvknfvmkoTGL3V5WJ4CI957hKlsNJFp0ihT7AZKNb+vO8IR2 Vx+AYHBv2kAHw5svuMuYgKNUOwZ0e43Ro8fJrCs2d8OfBynQXQuNACLWkBuNU9gMdJa3 Mm3lmux7mnJI4GnrMkOFZ8zYJ3nePuMgtd+U77evnhwTDUgdIN+UKvzOklvescMkWYiE jaRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2EB2mSUQYkL+xTBpqNZsXnjirCmnpjUHujzlNdBQPfo=; b=HWKrgzqVdb5ijTPmbyz6rNLwdNwpd3yjDx1ybDtJqKuqWokxOgx3SNtF46BPdJVfEE CfD2Kkmh4uwm0qEw/pcS9/PMNs0f4Sc4boU56ib6YI1rI2Mp4oUCXJ+un8spLBRzmmOc /phchmQp39yR9T5CGi1zw7odx9A33Hk0pBfY6MsKy85Pxtx89lGqEQ0rbINMGxXWiZlp AfjCYKs1s4nK+15Gil8DG/2cdse5GCV4En0jcr8icewNcVjXh3ayfPd+fQkZJZ8ADfun dtsBcwmOWkO6Agv+UP7HwYqcNPkmYLMxVW+QVEwqNelFiSUmzhBmF7PNeKHQEpUy1eh3 Dy7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub5Ffbzwajm4VOJ2wF3QZ8q9PlKLlQKnNEzzyqz9x1KGwnJkN/w pB2SWwq/vxNXJjz+SANwW/xc8ZJAyIm6f0YPxShiQ/WZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZ61oRMp3wvcNj11SD6LMJQTsDcVhL0BvowT+uVrsfEdUpyoZmeJEgRx8r1isKkm+Yb9mFsKB3sRdIDNRIqrcs= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e090:: with SMTP id cb16mr5895952plb.32.1550007188974; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:33:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm> In-Reply-To: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm> From: Steve French Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:32:58 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees To: Sasha Levin Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-mm , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Makes sense - e.g. I would like to have a process to make automation of the xfstests for proposed patches for stable for cifs.ko easier and part of the process (as we already do for cifs/smb3 related checkins to for-next ie linux next before sending to mainline for cifs.ko). Each filesystem has a different set of xfstests (and perhaps other mechanisms) to run so might be very specific to each file system, but would be helpful to discuss On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:32 AM Sasha Levin wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose a discussion about the workflow of the stable trees > when it comes to fs/ and mm/. In the past year we had some friction with > regards to the policies and the procedures around picking patches for > stable tree, and I feel it would be very useful to establish better flow > with the folks who might be attending LSF/MM. > > I feel that fs/ and mm/ are in very different places with regards to > which patches go in -stable, what tests are expected, and the timeline > of patches from the point they are proposed on a mailing list to the > point they are released in a stable tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose > two different sessions on this (one for fs/ and one for mm/), as a > common session might be less conductive to agreeing on a path forward as > the starting point for both subsystems are somewhat different. > > We can go through the existing processes, automation, and testing > mechanisms we employ when building stable trees, and see how we can > improve these to address the concerns of fs/ and mm/ folks. > > -- > Thanks, > Sasha -- Thanks, Steve