Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Wed Oct 23 2024 - 14:06:02 EST


On 10/23/24 10:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:50:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:37:38AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
We could add a report for the above, but:

1. Linus consistently pulls patches that haven't seen the light of day.
2. Linus explicitly objected to making a linux-next a must have.

So unless these results would be actually used, what's the point in
writing all of that?

Yes, without Linus caring we're not going to get our process worked out.
Not sure how a tree that probably won't have much better latency than
linux-next is going to fix that, though.

If I recall correctly, one thing Linus asked us to do earlier this year
(ARM Summit) is to CC him on -next failures. I have been failing to do
this, so I will post myself a note or something to remind me.

After all, if Linus doesn't know of a problem with a set of commits,
how does he know not to pull it?


As of right now:

Build results:
total: 158 pass: 144 fail: 14
Failed builds:
arm:axm55xx_defconfig
csky:defconfig
i386:allyesconfig
i386:allmodconfig
microblaze:defconfig
mips:allmodconfig
mips:mtx1_defconfig
mips:db1xxx_defconfig
openrisc:allmodconfig
parisc:allmodconfig
parisc64:generic-64bit_defconfig
sh:defconfig
sh:shx3_defconfig
xtensa:allmodconfig
Qemu test results:
total: 556 pass: 528 fail: 28
Unit test results:
pass: 463943 fail: 0

And that is a good day. Sometimes dozens of builds and hundreds
of boot tests fail. Analyzing those failures would be a full-time job.
Who do you expect would or should do that ?

Guenter