Re: [PATCH] Revert "nios2: Convert __pte_free_tlb() to use ptdescs"

[Guenter Roeck]

On 6/27/23 15:35, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 15:14, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This reverts commit 6ebe94baa2b9ddf3ccbb7f94df6ab26234532734.
> >
> > The patch "nios2: Convert __pte_free_tlb() to use ptdescs" was supposed
> > to go together with a patchset that Vishal Moola had planned taking it
> > through the mm tree. By just having this patch, all NIOS2 builds are
> > broken.
>
> This is now at least the third time just this merge window where some
> base tree was broken, and people thought that linux-next is some kind
> of testing ground for it all.
>
> NO!
>
> Linux-next is indeed for testing, and for finding situations where
> there are interactions between different trees.
>
> But linux-next is *not* a replacement for "this tree has to work on
> its own". THAT testing needs to be done independently, and *before* a
> tree hits linux-next.
>
> It is *NOT* ok to say "this will work in combination with that other
> tree". EVERY SINGLE TREE needs to work on its own, because otherwise
> you cannot bisect the end result sanely.
>
> We apparently had the NIOS2 tree being broken. And the RCU tree was
> broken. And the KUnit tree was broken.

Actually, this one is broken in linux-next as well because it was pulled
into it, but the context patches needed to make it work (compile) are not
there. It is also broken in next/pending-fixes for the same reason.

Only this happened so quick that by the time I noticed and reported
and argued that, no, I did not try to apply this patch on its own,
the pull request into mainline was already sent and applied.

Problem with linux-next is that it is so badly broken that it would take
a full-time position to track down all its failures. Then there are those
last-minute patches added in the week (or days) before the commit window
opens which break it again. This is one example, but there is at least
one more in linux-next (and pending-fixes); see
https://kerneltests.org/builders/next-sh-pending-fixes/builds/822/steps/buildcommand/logs/stdio

Guenter

> In all those cases, the base tree did not compile properly on its own,
> and linux-next "magically fixed" it by either having Stephen Rothwell
> literally fix the build breakage by hand, or by having some other tree
> hide the problem.
>
> This is very much not ok.
>
> I'm not sure why it happened so much this release, but this needs to
> stop. People need to realize that you can't just throw shit at the
> wall and see if it sticks. You need to test your own trees *first*,
> and *independently* of other peoples trees.
>
> Then, if  you have done basic testing, you can then have it in
> linux-next and that hopefully then finds any issues with bad
> interactions with other trees, and maybe also ends up getting more
> coverage testing on odd architectures and with odd configurations.
>
> But linux-next must not in *any* way be a replacement for doing basic
> testing on your own tree first.
>
>                    Linus