From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:44:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20090612134428.GC32105@elte.hu> References: <20090612102427.32582baa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1244768406.7172.1.camel@pasglop> <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> <1244799197.7172.106.camel@pasglop> <20090612125335.GH31845@elte.hu> <1244812224.7172.146.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1244812224.7172.146.camel@pasglop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Peter Zijlstra , ppc-dev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, Linus List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org * Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > linux-next should not be second-guessing maintainers and should > > not act as an "approval forum" for controversial features, > > increasing the (already quite substantial) pressure on > > maintainers to apply more crap. > > I agree here. That's not the point. The idea is that for things > that -are- approved by their respective maintainers, to get some > integration testing and ironing of those mechanical bugs so that > by the time they hit mainstream, they don't break bisection among > others. This is certainly doable for agreeable features - which is the bulk - and it is being done. But this is a catch-22 for _controversial_ new features - which perfcounters clearly was, in case you turned off your lkml subscription ;-) And if you hit that build breakage during bisection you can do: git cherry-pick e14112d Also, you seem to brush off the notion that far more bugs slip through linux-next than get caught by it. So if you think linux-next matters in terms of _regression_ testing, the numbers dont seem to support that notion. This particular incident does support that notion though, granted - but it's taken out of context IMHO: In terms of test coverage, at least for our trees, less than 1% of the bugs we handle get reported in a linux-next context - and most of the bugs that get reported (against say the scheduler tree) are related to rare architectures. In fact, i checked, there were _zero_ x86 bugs reported against linux-next and solved against it between v2.6.30-rc1 and v2.6.30: git log --grep=next -i v2.6.30-rc1..v2.6.30 arch/x86/ Doing it over the full cycle shows one commit altogether - a Xen build failure. In fact, i just checked the whole stabilization cycle for the whole kernel (v2.6.30-rc1..v2.6.30-final), and there were only 5 linux-next originated patches, most of them build failures. I did this by looking at all occurances of 'next', in all commit logs: git log --grep=next -i v2.6.30-rc1..v2.6.30 and then manually checking the context of all 'next' matches and counting the linux-next related commits. So lets be generous and say that because some people dont put the bug report originator into the changelog it was four times as many, 20 - but that's still dwarved by the sheer amount of post-rc1 changes: thousands of changes and hundreds of regressions. linux-next is mostly useful (to me at least) not for the cross-builds it does, but in terms of mapping out upcoming conflicts - which also drives early detection of problematic patches and problematic conflicts. Ingo