Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure

Stephen Rothwell
2009-06-13T04:55:12Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1738 bytes --]

Hi Ingo,

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:44:28 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> 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.

I expect that most bugs get reported and fixed before code gets to
linux-next (in fact one of the prerequisites for being in linux-next is
that code has been tested as well as possible).

> 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.

Nice set of figures. For some other context, between April 6 and June 9
(2.6.30-rc1 to 2.6.30) I sent 50 emails with subjects like "linux-next:
xxx tree build failure". What results from those emails? I sometimes
don't even hear back. Almost all of the failures get fixed.

A lot of these probably also get discovered independently. I don't
really care as long as they do get fixed.

One of those failures was a sparc build failure due to a change in the
tip-core tree (see commit d2de688891909b148efe83a6fc9520a9cd6015f0).
Another report produced commit 27b19565fe4ca5b0e9d2ae98ce4b81ca728bf445.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]