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,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 E9EE7C282CA for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:01:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B937F222BB for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:01:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="VIMY0KrK" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391087AbfBMJBj (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:01:39 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-f180.google.com ([209.85.219.180]:35220 "EHLO mail-yb1-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727206AbfBMJBi (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:01:38 -0500 Received: by mail-yb1-f180.google.com with SMTP id v2so634958ybm.2; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 01:01:38 -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=nOxAq2jgYrMbNTBlWFr73Rc+ViApmre//M8IaWoP5S0=; b=VIMY0KrK4iSNyI1HGmm4jPV9TrQ8QlHaQh+ToWWJjoo8CPj15twvFmLLdUrKhTAEuC biSzvOM4rUQMNMRSLiF8FC5/cdnQm8YeFA83kwKe9KrxnJpJ/H1JqWy0QIeMiUnEFmOH AoGIq6s8Hf8lnYLG+tbwxlDl3CX3zGKbHSkAvuelpni4+TJUfm3tTR/sEgAK5F7qCN7J X+B+k2wB5QutnnTROe8xnwDeO0DIPSvEa3LTswwjR/YISSO4/IgEqSio+8bUdv5vFCCy KuM/DtIYgwC5ImjMq7rtXguacejHqDPZc+bsS2Te3hQ0t9AREltbQK1D8ba7bAqaH85v k4YA== 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=nOxAq2jgYrMbNTBlWFr73Rc+ViApmre//M8IaWoP5S0=; b=CUkdbqv50GTUcxGmRjdNST62SVIA45LNwRQYASxfLyuYZJXX+Fm2d/mqoh6AybvDgB 62Bfl+v86TR5kVDfJVGPLbtW4pfgfCD69tLIhnYA4gJrsGWUdnxpk1DzVXfQGwU8B+ZQ m0o/ZZx1D6VTMF6MYxads+7+DTUaCRJFh0mSAPTZvtR1PTW5SxDY0m5y983D4PbffsR6 241YSpEnvrdGjE87nwy07MRn0yT/Rb2a+UV2ZK9RrzxDz3xg5NQFuhQ1fXZ4m6tC3vD1 j9QLHV4+HIW2UjLtkVRj7DFB51iDFspH8PkL74IStAow4SzEoYsGh8gMli8HnwsArENj 4mlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZcEJTbtktCqkmBMdawBaZ0fWCI2VZboQdyFN+/dLqns0pxuEjm hjikQzlo1VkyS/RZfRJW/vHQ5LwFN6rGFh89dVQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZIW2qaSfMP7UCdKZdSY60xgXrV4aT4hPX+oDKBJgV5JMHXw6PQsG1u07u6EgbYCN/CakP8YSOXqaenfqEulHM= X-Received: by 2002:a25:9c09:: with SMTP id c9mr6796704ybo.462.1550048497909; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 01:01:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm> <20190213073707.GA2875@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20190213073707.GA2875@kroah.com> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:01:25 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees To: Greg KH Cc: Steve French , Sasha Levin , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-mm , LKML , "Luis R. Rodriguez" 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 On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:37 AM Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:20:00AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > I never saw an email from you or Greg saying, the branch "stable-xxx" is > > in review. Please run your tests. > > That is what my "Subject: [PATCH 4.9 000/137] 4.9.156-stable review" > type emails are supposed to kick off. They are sent both to the stable > mailing list and lkml. > > This message already starts the testing systems going for a number of > different groups out there, do you want to be added to the cc: list so > you get them directly? > No thanks, I'll fix my email filters ;-) I think the main difference between these review announcements and true CI is what kind of guaranty you get for a release candidate from NOT getting a test failure response, which is one of the main reasons that where holding back xfs stable fixes for so long. 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. Do you have any such list of tests that you *know* are being run, that you (or Sasha) run yourself or that you actively wait on an ACK from a group before a release? Thanks, Amir.