On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:04:05PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:08 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:32:43AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I'd like to propose a discussion about the workflow of the stable trees > >> > > when it comes to fs/ and mm/. In the past year we had some friction with > >> > > regards to the policies and the procedures around picking patches for > >> > > stable tree, and I feel it would be very useful to establish better flow > >> > > with the folks who might be attending LSF/MM. I would like to participate in this as well - it is very important that we improve test automation processes. We run a series of tests, hosted with VMs in Azure (mostly xfstests but also the git fs regression tests and various ones that are fs specific for testing various scenarios like reconnect and various fs specific mount options) regularly (on every pull request sent upstream to mainline) for cifs.ko and also for the kernel server (ksmbd.ko) as well. This does leave a big gap for stable although Redhat and SuSE seem to run a similar set of regression tests so not much risk for the distros. In theory we could periodically run the cifs/smb3.1.1 automated tests against stable, perhaps every few weeks and send results somewhere if there was a process for this for the various fs - but the tests we run were pretty clearly listed (and also in the wiki.samba.org) so may be easier ways to do this. Tests could be run locally on the same machine to ksmbd from cifs.ko (or to Samba if preferred) so nothing extra to setup. Would be worth discussing the best process for automating something like this - others may have figured out tricks that could help all fs in this xfstest automation > >> > > I feel that fs/ and mm/ are in very different places with regards to > >> > > which patches go in -stable, what tests are expected, and the timeline > >> > > of patches from the point they are proposed on a mailing list to the > >> > > point they are released in a stable tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose > >> > > two different sessions on this (one for fs/ and one for mm/), as a > >> > > common session might be less conductive to agreeing on a path forward as > >> > > the starting point for both subsystems are somewhat different. > >> > > > >> > > We can go through the existing processes, automation, and testing > >> > > mechanisms we employ when building stable trees, and see how we can > >> > > improve these to address the concerns of fs/ and mm/ folks. > >> > Hi Sasha, > >> > > >> > I think it would be interesting to have another discussion on the state of fs/ > >> > in -stable and see if things have changed over the past couple of years. -- Thanks, Steve
