On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > Best effort testing in timely manner is good, but a good way to > > > improve confidence in stable kernel releases is a publicly > > > available list of tests that the release went through. > > > > We have that, you aren't noticing them... > > This is one of the biggest things I want to address: there is a > disconnect between the stable kernel testing story and the tests the fs/ > and mm/ folks expect to see here. > > On one had, the stable kernel folks see these kernels go through entire > suites of testing by multiple individuals and organizations, receiving > way more coverage than any of Linus's releases. > > On the other hand, things like LTP and selftests tend to barely scratch > the surface of our mm/ and fs/ code, and the maintainers of these > subsystems do not see LTP-like suites as something that adds significant > value and ignore them. Instead, they have a (convoluted) set of testing > they do with different tools and configurations that qualifies their > code as being "tested". > > 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 :( Anyway, just having a list of what tests each subsystem things is "good to run" would be great to have somewhere. Ideally in the kernel tree itself, as that's what kselftests are for :) thanks, greg k-h
