On Mon, 14 May 2018 10:00:30 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Sasha Levin > <alexander.le...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:44:50PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > >>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:38:21PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > >>> - A merge window commit spent 50% more days, on average, in -next than a > >>> -rc > >>> commit. > >> > >>So it *used* to be the case that after the merge window, I would queue > >>up bug fixes for the next merge window. Greg K-H pushed for me to > >>send them to Linus sooner, instead of waiting for the next merge > >>window. TBH, it's actually easier for me to just wait until the next > >>merge window, but please understand that there are multiple pressures > >>on maintainers going on here, and the latest efforts to try to use > >>AUTOSEL is just the most recent pressure placed on maintainers. > >> > >>The other thing is that when there is a regression users who are > >>testing linux-next want it fixed *fast*. That's considered more > >>important to them than waiting for one, perfect patch, just to keep > >>AUTOSEL happy. > >> > >>So please understand that when you say that maintainers *need* to do X > >>or Y, that there you are not the only one standing in line putting > >>pressures on maintainers saying they *need* to do something. And > >>quite frankly, I consider keeping people who are nice enough to test > >>linux-next happy to be **far** more important than AUTOSEL. > > > > Ted, > > > > I'm not at all asking to wait before adding the patches to your tree, > > or to -next. I'm asking to hold on to them a bit longer before you > > push them to Linus because I can show that patches that don't spend > > enough time in -next are more likely to introduce bugs. > > > > Yes, linux-next users want it fixed *now* and I completely agree it > > should be done that way, but the fix should not be immediately pushed to > > Linus as well. > > > > I've just finished reading an interesting article on LWN about the > > PostgreSQL fsync issues (https://lwn.net/Articles/752952/). If you > > look at Willy's commit, he wrote the final version of it about 5 days > > ago, Jeff merged it in 3 days ago, and Linus merged it in the tree > > today. Did it spend any time getting -next testing? nope. > > > > What's worse is that that commit is tagged for stable, which means > > that (given Greg's schedule) it may find it's way to -stable users > > even before some -next users/bots had a chance to test it out. > > I just noticed a case where a commit was picked up for stable, while a > bot had flagged it as a build regression 18 hours earlier (with a CC to > lkml). Also, this patch has been on a tree that I know is tested by Fengguang's robots for more than a week (and in linux-next for 2 days, which, I agree, is probably not enough), and still, I only received the bug report when the patch reached mainline. Are there tests that are only run on Linus' tree? > > So it looks like the script for backporting commits should be enhanced to > check for this (searching for the commit ID in my email archive found the > bot report). > > Thanks! > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert >
