On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:05:53AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:04:49PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:52:53AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 01:48:21PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay, this got pushed down my queue... > > > > > > > > > I stumbled across something as I was attempting to automate more parts > > > > > of our process to generate these reports. The original test results were > > > > > from a different version of the tree: 5.2.6-rc1-gdbc7f5c7df28. I suspect > > > > > that's the same thing that you were discussing with Pavel regarding the > > > > > IP tunnel patch that was added subsequent to the announcement. > > > > > > > > > > Just for my understanding, does this mean that the patch still makes it > > > > > into the 5.2.6 release, or was it supposed to go into 5.2.7? > > > > > > > > > > One problem that I ran into was that when I tried to correlate the test > > > > > results with your announcement email, there's no indication other than > > > > > the branch name and the release candidate name (5.2.6-rc1 in this case), > > > > > so there's no way to uniquely identify which test run belongs to the > > > > > announcement. Given that there are no tags for the release candidates > > > > > means that that's also not an option to uniquely associate with the > > > > > builds and tests. > > > > > > > > > > While the differences between the two builds are very minor here, I > > > > > wonder if there could perhaps in the future be a problem where I report > > > > > successful results for a test, but the same tests would be broken by a > > > > > patch added to the stable-rc branch subsequent to the announcement. The > > > > > test report would be misleading in that case. > > > > > > > > > > I noticed that you do add a couple of X-KernelTest-* headers to your > > > > > announcement emails, so I'm wondering if perhaps it was possible for you > > > > > to add another one that contains the exact SHA1 that corresponds to the > > > > > snapshot that's the release candidate. That would allow everyone to > > > > > uniquely associate test results with a specific release candidate. > > > > > > > > > > That said, perhaps I've just got this all wrong and there's already a > > > > > way to connect all the dots that I'm not aware of. Or maybe I'm being > > > > > too pedantic here? > > > > > > > > You aren't being pedantic, I think you are missing exactly what the > > > > linux-stable-rc tree is for and how it is created. > > > > > > > > Granted, it's not really documented anywhere so it's not your fault :) > > > > > > > > The linux-stable-rc tree is there ONLY for people who want to test the > > > > -rc kernels and can not, or do not want to, use the quilt tree of > > > > patches in the stable-queue.git tree on kernel.org. I generate the > > > > branches there from a script that throws away the current -rc branch and > > > > rebuilds it "from scratch" by applying the patches that are in the > > > > stable-quilt tree and then adds the -rc patch as well. This tree is > > > > generated multiple times when I am working on the queues and then when I > > > > want to do a "real" -rc release. > > > > > > > > The branches are constantly rebased, so you can not rely on 'git pull' > > > > doing the right thing (unless you add --rebase to it), and are there for > > > > testing only. > > > > > > > > Yes, you will see different results of a "-rc1" release in the tree > > > > depending on the time of day/week when I created the tree, and sometimes > > > > I generate them multiple times a day just to have some of the > > > > auto-builders give me results quickly (Linaro does pull from it and > > > > sends me results within the hour usually). > > > > > > > > So does that help? Ideally everyone would just use the quilt trees from > > > > stable-queue.git, but no everyone likes that, so the -rc git tree is > > > > there to make automated testing "easier". If that works with your > > > > workflow, wonderful, feel free to use it. If not, then go with the > > > > stable-quilt.git tree, or the tarballs on kernel.org. > > > > > > I'll have to look into that, to see if that'd work. I have to admit that > > > having a git tree to point scripts at is rather convenient for > > > automation. > > > > > > > And as for the SHA1 being in the emails, that doesn't make all that much > > > > sense as that SHA1 doesn't live very long. When I create the trees > > > > locally, I instantly delete them after pushing them to kernel.org so I > > > > can't regenerate them or do anything with them. > > > > > > Fair enough. I suppose the worst thing that could happen is that we may > > > fail to test a couple of commits occasionally. In the rare case where > > > this actually matters we'll likely end up reporting the failure for the > > > stable release, in which case it can be fixed in the next one. > > > > > > > DOes that help explain things better? > > > > > > Yes, makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for taking the time to explain > > > it. Do you want me to snapshot this and submit it as documentation > > > somewhere for later reference? > > > > It probably should go somewhere, but as the number of people that do > > "test stable kernels in an automated way" is very low, so far I've been > > doing ok with a one-by-one explaination. I guess if it's more obvious, > > more people would test, so sure, this should be cleaned up... > > How about something like the below. It applies to the stable-queue.git > repository. > > Thierry > > --- >8 --- > From 4083add6ccb4a1c23edeba650170470bcc5d5205 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:58:35 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] Describe the stable-queue release process > > Add a README file that describes how release candidates for stable > kernels are created and how users are expected to use them. This is > reworded from Greg's reply here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20190809085253.GA25046@xxxxxxxxx/ > --- > README | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 README > > diff --git a/README b/README > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..868469a73f68 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/README > @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ > +This repository is the canonical source for patches that make up the stable > +kernel releases. It consists of a set of directories for each of the stable > +kernels, as well as a directory that contains a snapshot of the patches for > +each stable release. > + > +The patches for each release can be found along with a complete tarball of > +a release in the following location: > + > + https://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/vX.Y/ > + > +For each stable release candidate, a patch representing the diff of all the > +patches in the stable queue is uploaded here: > + > + https://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/vX.Y/stable-review/ > + > +As a convenience for people that want to test release candidates of stable > +releases, a branch of the kernel git tree is created containing all of the > +patches in the given stable queue. These branches are available in the > +following repository: > + > + git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > + > +A branch exists for each of the stable releases. Note, though, that these > +branches are recreated from scratch by applying the queued stable patches > +on top of the prior release. As a consequence, the branches are not fast- > +forward and can change after a release candidate has been announced. The > +contents of the branch may therefore not match exactly what was released > +as the release candidate, depending on when you fetch it. No tags are > +created to track individual release candidates. If you're interested in > +exact reproducibility of a stable release candidate, please use the patches > +from the location mentioned above. > -- Sorry for the very long delay, cleaning out old emails... This looks really good, thanks for writing it up, I've now applied it to the stable-queue tree. greg k-h
