On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:14:09AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > On 3/20/19 1:06 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:46:09PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > >> On 2/13/19 2:52 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> > >>>> 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 :( > >> > >> We're working on investments for LDCG[0] in 2019 that include kernel CI > >> changes for server use cases. Please keep us informed of what you folks > >> ultimately want to see, and I'll pass on to the steering committee too. > >> > >> Ultimately I've been pushing for a kernel 0-day project for Arm. That's > >> probably going to require a lot of duplicated effort since the original > >> 0-day project isn't open, but creating an open one could help everyone. > > > > Why are you trying to duplicate it on your own? That's what kernel.ci > > should be doing, please join in and invest in that instead. It's an > > open source project with its own governance and needs sponsors, why > > waste time and money doing it all on your own? > > To clarify, I'm pushing for investment in kernel.ci to achieve that goal > that it could provide the same 0-day capability for Arm and others. Great, that's what I was trying to suggest :) > It'll ultimately result in duplicated effort vs if 0-day were open. "Half" of 0-day is open, but it's that other half that is still needed... thanks, greg k-h
