On 5/9/20 9:36 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 6:33 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Let's try this again... BFQ was missing a header, I fixed that up. > > The fix looked trivial to me. That wasn't what worries me. > > Why did you send me something that was clearly NOT TESTED AT ALL. > > If it hadn't even gotten build-testing, what _did_ it get? > > The fact that it now builds doesn't make me much happier. > > Why should I believe that this clearly totally untested pull request > is now any good? > > Why should I believe that your _future_ pull requests are any good, > when they clearly have absolutely _zero_ testing at all? > > Jens, in case you didn't catch on, this is a BIG PROBLEM. > > Sending me completely untested crap is a bigger deal than "let's just > polish the crap until it at least compiles". > > What have you done to make sure this doesn't happen again? I was out all day yesterday, so didn't get a chance to follow up on this one. I did notice that you pulled it, thanks for that. My test box is currently out of commission. While that doesn't mean it gets no testing, it does mean I'm using my laptop and qemu configs. Neither one of those have BFQ set, which is why it was missed. While that isn't ideal, it's not a core kernel file, or it would have never been missed. If you look at the patches, it's also not like they weren't reviewed, in fact they were quite heavily reviewed. So, yes, I agree this was unfortunate, and I hate having sent something that didn't compile for a pretty common option. That sucks. -- Jens Axboe
