Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees

[Jon Masters]

On 3/20/19 1:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:46:09PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 2/13/19 2:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>>>> 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 :(
>>
>> We're working on investments for LDCG[0] in 2019 that include kernel CI
>> changes for server use cases. Please keep us informed of what you folks
>> ultimately want to see, and I'll pass on to the steering committee too.
>>
>> Ultimately I've been pushing for a kernel 0-day project for Arm. That's
>> probably going to require a lot of duplicated effort since the original
>> 0-day project isn't open, but creating an open one could help everyone.
> 
> Why are you trying to duplicate it on your own?  That's what kernel.ci
> should be doing, please join in and invest in that instead.  It's an
> open source project with its own governance and needs sponsors, why
> waste time and money doing it all on your own?

To clarify, I'm pushing for investment in kernel.ci to achieve that goal
that it could provide the same 0-day capability for Arm and others.
It'll ultimately result in duplicated effort vs if 0-day were open.

Jon.