On Wed 28-03-18 19:33:06, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:21:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 27-03-18 19:54:35, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 09:06:37AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > So by no means the MM backports were reviewed by me. And considering how hard > >> > it is to get any review for MM patches in general I strongly suspect that > >> > others didn't review either. > >> > > >> > In general I am quite skeptical about the automagic backports > >> > selections, to be honest. MM patches should be reasonably good at > >> > selecting stable backports and adding more patches on top just risks > >> > regressions. > >> > >> BTW other than suggesting we needing *actual review* of the MM patches, are > >> there known unit tests which could be run as well? Thinking long term. > > > >There are some in selftests but most fixes are quite hard to get a > >specialized testcase for. Rememeber the MM is a pile of heuristics to > >handle large scale of workloads. > > Would running mmtests for each patch help here at all? mmtests are more for performance than regression/correctness testing AFAIR. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
