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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 730AFC282CA for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:52:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48451222D1 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:52:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1550087561; bh=QPejU1nGrklF7jDizGBjyiGrwlYJaw0zDwsmtyviJMw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=dbpp1hC6XDcPNsQLMvTd5x/1cwTfoS/YvxMXYazGEkBFGBk/UbMv79+9V4I7+2kBa 0KDc+hWx5/WaeCF/TMcJ5o3OdkEzmQjvZnWAkW+ztRFB5iQlrVnd8Hrvv5EqK3BPT+ C76oCwK2ktIn67EqdYXr9epTSlDTZy0Wv2pu2CIg= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2436536AbfBMTwf (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:52:35 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:52362 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726362AbfBMTwf (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:52:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A3E2222D0; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:52:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1550087555; bh=QPejU1nGrklF7jDizGBjyiGrwlYJaw0zDwsmtyviJMw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=wLQSK0O2xlZnT8wJXZOUBFdQqO7UePZ5A18ViCuRUzPEfsk9BViBVbFcu7TJYzAIP OYdioetc94BDZEXy7TG3isjRJz5nwKtj/8lsH2cZM2T7fyS1p7CNQJGt2BSEumDLhs wMLq7YZsaokSPjRFfREA6ZMUROGf6jlyXAi2K4+0= Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:52:32 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Sasha Levin Cc: Amir Goldstein , Steve French , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-mm , LKML , "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees Message-ID: <20190213195232.GA10047@kroah.com> References: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm> <20190213073707.GA2875@kroah.com> <20190213091803.GA2308@kroah.com> <20190213192512.GH69686@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190213192512.GH69686@sasha-vm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > 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. > > > > We have that, you aren't noticing them... > > This is one of the biggest things I want to address: there is a > disconnect between the stable kernel testing story and the tests the fs/ > and mm/ folks expect to see here. > > On one had, the stable kernel folks see these kernels go through entire > suites of testing by multiple individuals and organizations, receiving > way more coverage than any of Linus's releases. > > On the other hand, things like LTP and selftests tend to barely scratch > the surface of our mm/ and fs/ code, and the maintainers of these > subsystems do not see LTP-like suites as something that adds significant > value and ignore them. Instead, they have a (convoluted) set of testing > they do with different tools and configurations that qualifies their > code as being "tested". > > So really, it sounds like a low hanging fruit: we don't really need to > write much more testing code code nor do we have to refactor existing > test suites. We just need to make sure the right tests are running on > stable kernels. I really want to clarify what each subsystem sees as > "sufficient" (and have that documented somewhere). kernel.ci and 0-day and Linaro are starting to add the fs and mm tests to their test suites to address these issues (I think 0-day already has many of them). So this is happening, but not quite obvious. I know I keep asking Linaro about this :( Anyway, just having a list of what tests each subsystem things is "good to run" would be great to have somewhere. Ideally in the kernel tree itself, as that's what kselftests are for :) thanks, greg k-h