Hi! > >Well, 0day, kernelci etc... is nice... until the change is in the > >driver. Most of the kernel are drivers, remember? > > > >I don't know. I'd say that if patch is important enough for -stable, > >there should be someone testing it. For core kernel changes, that can > >be 0day bot, but for drivers... > > > > For my part I am just glad that we were able to pick up a fix in xhci code > just last week, tested or not, from -stable, instead of having to track it > down ourselves. Similar for many other driver patches which _do_ affect us > (like the flurry of ext4 patches this week). Granted, there are lots of > patches which we don't use/need, but even there it is surprising how many > problems are found with existing testing. > > For anyone interested in making sure that obscure (whatever that means) > drivers are tested for stable releases, but does not want to spend time on it, > all I can recommend is to implement qemu support for it and let me know, > and I'll be happy to add a respective test to my test farm.
Umm. Yes, qemu support for every driver would be nice, but will not happen. > However, ultimately, stable release candidates are public. Everyone is > invited to test them. Anyone interested in a specific release and > driver Yes, they are public. SubmittingPatches says every patch should be tested, and that's clearly not happening for -stable. And I'd like those patch marked such. > >And problem exists on mainline, too. > > > >Hmm. Patch for obscure driver. Wow, nice, is WellKnownName actually > >using that driver? Aha, no, he is not; he is doing global > >search&replace, and did not test the patch... > > > > Ah, like me with the strncpy(x, y, strlen(y)) -> memcpy() replacements > I did a week or so ago ? You are right, I only compile tested those and > otherwise trusted my ability to understand C code. If that caused any > problems, please let me know, and hopefully I'll be able to learn something > from it. Yes, such stuff. No, I was not talking about you. I did not want to give concrete example, but... # > get_monotonic_boottime() is deprecated, so let's convert this to # > the simpler ktime_get_boot_ns(). # > # > Signed-off-by: <redacted> # # Have you tested it? # ... # > - curr_boot = timespec_to_ns(&boot_time) * cpus; # # Original code is pretty weird (notice the * cpus), so I'm # double-checking. Yes, often you can guess that patch was probably not tested, but it would be nice to have Tested: compile annotation to take away the guesswork. It took me a while an some head scratching in this concrete example, and it is not first time this happened. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature