From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63CD29D3 for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 17:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07733F8 for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 17:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 10:09:20 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Sasha Levin Message-ID: <20180503170920.GC26754@roeck-us.net> References: <20180501163818.GD1468@sasha-vm> <20180502195138.GC18390@sasha-vm> <20180503000620.GA29205@thunk.org> <20180503145533.GK18390@sasha-vm> <20180503154911.GA26754@roeck-us.net> <20180503160210.GO18390@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180503160210.GO18390@sasha-vm> Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "w@1wt.eu" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:02:12PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > >You are misquoting me. I am saying that it would be a bad idea to hold up > >bug fixes after -rc4, which is quite different to saying that patches > >don't make it into stable releases fast enough. I am perfectly happy to > >wait a week or so for a patch to soak in _mainline_ before being applied > >to stable. > > Most bug fixes that go in at that point are fixes for previous released > kernels, what's the harm in keeping them around for longer? > The ones I am mostly concerned about are fixes for CVEs, crashes, file system corruptions, and similar. Maybe the enterprise folks don't mind keeping those around for a month or more even though a fix is available. I do. > For AUTOSEL, I'd be happy to learn of issues you encounter and address > them in my process. > > I've been submitting automatically selected patches for over a year now > and the track record for regressions is on par with patches that are > tagged for stable. So far it hasn't been an issue. Or, rather, not much; with more patches applied, the percentage of regressions may be the same, but the number of regressions is higher. My "customers" care about the number, not about the percentage. However, the set of test results attached below (from last night) _is_ a problem. I don't know what changed, but something clearly did, to the point that I am _very_ concerned about the next set of stable releases. Guenter --- For v4.14.39-580-gc8cd674: Build results: total: 146 pass: 98 fail: 48 Qemu test results: total: 100 pass: 21 fail: 79 For v4.4.131-268-ga33ce4a: Build results: total: 146 pass: 92 fail: 54 Qemu test results: total: 127 pass: 91 fail: 36 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoCwtDWZJOlEupP024XTH0/7z07hVwQFx6FVIx0Ucs1Ev2LZjhOoUv7oxtqIjzhEDN0Vjxy ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1525367384; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=XYHlOnrnO9G4TwnQ/q+u5PYuul0H3od8qUQamFhPrOX6S8bV6f1W9ltG5hYNGW8psg abTXNQpBqKN7/lTUxe+g63u9chwGWMpU1wd4ABJpZlvTp607hTv+MG+cUq3Mm+KC4sIM wpQjMRsGQcprAwafsTEmpqDLrjfl+N2ajLMpUGngpFOM5ytHWfgbgja++OX4nAHtoEu8 Wte9a2ScCn24TZMu0qHfLTjOprLWji0qWPmfaEqKENRuln+VqVSIH/lWpf/hSirwI3cG 6J10hi712EMNc8X3lg569B9nNNJiPLeUKBN/zeaUfbR72bY9PCfhoc2HDtlMwyNuHoMz JF0A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=vlruhQBdJctzZSaFH4vlW0vopx33qIHiKIIswieTxuw=; b=BTckBukvJIylUzcYyuAkdoyFIOQYrPh4mDXRIqIx19QFYjmhh21BR8Ird9sBCJAljd cyNYOU7UbNR2D5zmHMLxW8c1DDE8c+tlGMF51u8E6Vfa53k4Ds5Iq0aB03mNsXM86j2t fZxmzij4iZ6KRD+6AE0j/DpCKC/8+iUI7vVyQ3WNPQ1kc2Klm3I2LCEn9VvLL23VLtk7 d8UGy4ZSOEZL8+s3GpbRZYurLhiyQVM9dL2wMQhPQ5zm/wqyVbwoyiM0NADs+LZq2Vrn rHDcpuOKFkOSPPrbASQj1UiNa+LwwbqGoDJwQiGSJE8AjgLelxC/euI14ktkTTmNKSuz 86OQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@roeck-us.net header.s=default header.b=tOPD9ZcC; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux@roeck-us.net designates 208.91.199.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux@roeck-us.net Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@roeck-us.net header.s=default header.b=tOPD9ZcC; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux@roeck-us.net designates 208.91.199.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux@roeck-us.net Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 10:09:20 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Sasha Levin Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Geert Uytterhoeven , Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "w@1wt.eu" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches Message-ID: <20180503170920.GC26754@roeck-us.net> References: <20180501163818.GD1468@sasha-vm> <20180502195138.GC18390@sasha-vm> <20180503000620.GA29205@thunk.org> <20180503145533.GK18390@sasha-vm> <20180503154911.GA26754@roeck-us.net> <20180503160210.GO18390@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180503160210.GO18390@sasha-vm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Authenticated_sender: guenter@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: guenter@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: guenter@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: =?utf-8?q?1599280464106480109?= X-GMAIL-MSGID: =?utf-8?q?1599463630765215132?= X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:02:12PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > >You are misquoting me. I am saying that it would be a bad idea to hold up > >bug fixes after -rc4, which is quite different to saying that patches > >don't make it into stable releases fast enough. I am perfectly happy to > >wait a week or so for a patch to soak in _mainline_ before being applied > >to stable. > > Most bug fixes that go in at that point are fixes for previous released > kernels, what's the harm in keeping them around for longer? > The ones I am mostly concerned about are fixes for CVEs, crashes, file system corruptions, and similar. Maybe the enterprise folks don't mind keeping those around for a month or more even though a fix is available. I do. > For AUTOSEL, I'd be happy to learn of issues you encounter and address > them in my process. > > I've been submitting automatically selected patches for over a year now > and the track record for regressions is on par with patches that are > tagged for stable. So far it hasn't been an issue. Or, rather, not much; with more patches applied, the percentage of regressions may be the same, but the number of regressions is higher. My "customers" care about the number, not about the percentage. However, the set of test results attached below (from last night) _is_ a problem. I don't know what changed, but something clearly did, to the point that I am _very_ concerned about the next set of stable releases. Guenter --- For v4.14.39-580-gc8cd674: Build results: total: 146 pass: 98 fail: 48 Qemu test results: total: 100 pass: 21 fail: 79 For v4.4.131-268-ga33ce4a: Build results: total: 146 pass: 92 fail: 54 Qemu test results: total: 127 pass: 91 fail: 36