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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 81E98C43381 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 01:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD7521934 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 01:50:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1550195424; bh=SrpytnwARM1mJLTjr4gqtS19qJrRqNK0e1rIS0pu3BU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=Hhjx1CtHIIMLddLTIpfvw1Jmdbav+WdKKrVbbnepZ7VomraR249oDYoT6ocS4K+Dc l/dm0rzeRBTkcM4TVdOnwHC50h2wDc4miXzJxS5Xmml/nJH8xeatvkqQ4yaVIr84tx bRx6SQEDqzhzy9SXvqyUW2wjz17zNx1TjpT0A2Is= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730989AbfBOBuX (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:50:23 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39102 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730852AbfBOBuX (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:50:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (c-73-47-72-35.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.47.72.35]) (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 7797A21934; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 01:50:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1550195421; bh=SrpytnwARM1mJLTjr4gqtS19qJrRqNK0e1rIS0pu3BU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BHXRGPVIG6SLeXma4mzXznz5vji0QPOy5UceOKsYtVWtT9PxZajJbK0XZITkLVJSs 7r8U4V69QHZgqfaviUfdqKugSr3hWHgnOhzz6N6LxLbhYgwe/hFHKW2ssPG4Q/qHbO 5ffC9IjvkA9uzJI27P0vh9+jws0vmZr/zCbeNlwY= Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:50:20 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: James Bottomley Cc: Greg KH , 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: <20190215015020.GJ69686@sasha-vm> References: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm> <20190213073707.GA2875@kroah.com> <20190213091803.GA2308@kroah.com> <20190213192512.GH69686@sasha-vm> <20190213195232.GA10047@kroah.com> <1550088875.2871.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1550088875.2871.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) 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 12:14:35PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 20:52 +0100, Greg KH wrote: >> 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 :( > >0day has xfstests at least, but it's opt-in only (you have to request >that it be run on your trees). When I did it for the SCSI tree, I had >to email Fenguangg directly, there wasn't any other way of getting it. It's very tricky to do even if someone would just run it. I worked with the xfs folks for quite a while to gather the various configs they want to use, and to establish the baseline for a few of the stable trees (some tests are know to fail, etc). So just running xfstests "blindly" doesn't add much value beyond ltp I think. -- Thanks, Sasha