Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

Guenter Roeck
2024-10-23T18:05:51Z

On 10/23/24 10:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:50:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:37:38AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> We could add a report for the above, but:
>>>
>>> 1. Linus consistently pulls patches that haven't seen the light of day.
>>> 2. Linus explicitly objected to making a linux-next a must have.
>>>
>>> So unless these results would be actually used, what's the point in
>>> writing all of that?
>>
>> Yes, without Linus caring we're not going to get our process worked out.
>> Not sure how a tree that probably won't have much better latency than
>> linux-next is going to fix that, though.
>
> If I recall correctly, one thing Linus asked us to do earlier this year
> (ARM Summit) is to CC him on -next failures. I have been failing to do
> this, so I will post myself a note or something to remind me.
>
> After all, if Linus doesn't know of a problem with a set of commits,
> how does he know not to pull it?
>

As of right now:

Build results:
total: 158 pass: 144 fail: 14
Failed builds:
arm:axm55xx_defconfig
csky:defconfig
i386:allyesconfig
i386:allmodconfig
microblaze:defconfig
mips:allmodconfig
mips:mtx1_defconfig
mips:db1xxx_defconfig
openrisc:allmodconfig
parisc:allmodconfig
parisc64:generic-64bit_defconfig
sh:defconfig
sh:shx3_defconfig
xtensa:allmodconfig
Qemu test results:
total: 556 pass: 528 fail: 28
Unit test results:
pass: 463943 fail: 0

And that is a good day. Sometimes dozens of builds and hundreds
of boot tests fail. Analyzing those failures would be a full-time job.
Who do you expect would or should do that ?

Guenter