[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] linux-next and process

Andrew Morton akpm at linux-foundation.org
Mon Jun 18 21:31:19 UTC 2012

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:17:52 -0400
Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:08:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>  > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:28:12 +1000
>  > Stephen Rothwell <sfr at canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>  > 
>  > > Also, I am wondering if we should talk a little about the process of
>  > > being maintainers (I hear groans already :-) - I don't really want to
>  > > teach you all how to suck eggs) and whether people have any (hopefully
>  > > positive) criticism of the linux-next process itself.
>  > 
>  > I'd like to hear about the code which is turning up in mainline but
>  > wasn't in linux-next, or wasn't in linux-next in the same form/version.
>  > How common is this, why is it happening, do we have a problem and if
>  > so, what do we do about it.
> This has been puzzling me for a while. Sasha Levin runs my fuzzing tool
> on -next almost daily, and keeps finding bugs.

That's a useful thing to do.

> Then when Linus merges it all,
> we see a ton of new bugs appear that neither of us hit before.
> I've observed this for the last 2-3 releases, but it's probably been happening
> for longer.  This isn't driver specific either, it's core code that everyone runs.

Oh my, I didn't know that.  So we have regressions going into mainline
which would have been detected beforehand, only they're not, because
code isn't getting a trial run in -next?  If so, that is a massive fail.

It would be interesting to bisect some of these regressions, then do a
bit of investigation into how the offending patches managed to get into
mainline.  Perhaps a pattern will emerge...

More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list