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
