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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 0F2FCC282CE for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5BB222D0 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="xI+srN6X" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1733060AbfBMUOi (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:14:38 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:52674 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726262AbfBMUOi (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:14:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5328EE241; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:14:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHExg__6OIgB; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:14:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.68.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BE5D8EE177; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:14:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1550088877; bh=0InwHf7+mURVAKyXEaQpqNoLecFzymNi+/Deb4eyYCc=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xI+srN6XtRVUQAx4e28wl7kirjboFHpZ7AE+H2UKiiuaetc074za9B9XQv3rDJqXj qBiHpjBkDkyl63ykUhla4gL9N508Z74ZNDmKZPLfAsUciZ8WMNP9+jai4E1OS9PDi0 Iy555aTJ+F1dD7WuoArKQlZ86W98wsqelbEYJvGc= Message-ID: <1550088875.2871.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees From: James Bottomley To: Greg KH , Sasha Levin Cc: Amir Goldstein , Steve French , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-mm , LKML , "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:14:35 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20190213195232.GA10047@kroah.com> References: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm> <20190213073707.GA2875@kroah.com> <20190213091803.GA2308@kroah.com> <20190213192512.GH69686@sasha-vm> <20190213195232.GA10047@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. James