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

Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-10-24T07:01:29Z

Hi Steven,

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 8:49 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:16:31 -0700
> Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > I do get notifications, so it is still running.
> > Its configuration is (still) at https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git,
> > so you can check yourself if your current repositories and branches are
> > listed (and send a pull request to update it if needed). I see
> >
> > repo/linux/rostedt-kconfig:owner: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > repo/linux/rostedt-ktest:owner: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > repo/linux/rostedt-trace:owner: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> >
> > so at least some testing should still happen. I did notice though
> > that "notify_build_success_branch:" is only set in one of the files,
> > so you might not get notified if a build was successful in the other
> > two.
>
> Thanks for the update!
>
> Yeah, I started using topic branches (requested by Linus) and I didn't
> update the success notifications. That explains why I don't receive
> them anymore.
>
> Now I have to ask. What's the benefit of pushing to linux-next over
> waiting for the zero-day bot?

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 5:59 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Several thousand build tests, across pretty much every architecture.
>
> And a few hundred boot tests, lots virtualised, but some on real HW.
>
> A single character typo in an #ifdef your testing doesn't cover can
> break the build for lots of people ...

Or a missing "static" for a dummy function.
Or a plain 64-bit division.
Or ...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds