Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754528AbdIGIHP (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 04:07:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:32980 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753018AbdIGIHN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 04:07:13 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb486npmmenODyK+nDmylywuSgxP+/r1XHGe0o5kaLqqitaf9ZM9OydD98eTz/AzchdZ9VjKmg== Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:07:09 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v4.14: PCID support, 5-level paging support, Secure Memory Encryption support Message-ID: <20170907080709.hwospdejr2ztmqr7@gmail.com> References: <20170904093158.k6pg3ytcbotjlhv5@gmail.com> <20170905214046.ishenhbj7jrtoufc@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1637 Lines: 39 * Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Hm, just as background, there are no regression reports I'm aware of > > against any of these trees, plus most of the dangerous commits have > > been in linux-next for at least two weeks - the majority of them even > > longer. The last 2-4 commits of x86/mm are fresher. > > Side note: I do not believe a lot of people actually run linux-next on > laptops, so suspend/resume likely doesn't get a lot of testing in > next. > > I think most people who run linux-next tend to be automation things on farms. Yeah, so 10af6235e0d3 was in linux-next for over a month, yet no-one reported the bug. > Don't get me wrong - I love linux-next and your tip testing, but I > think linux-next is best for finding build errors etc big integration > issues, with some very rudimentary actual boot checking. > > Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think you are wrong - most boot tests don't involve laptops. linux-next is mostly server oriented - and servers are often more debuggable than laptops. (Have actual serial ports or physical network connections with serial emulation, etc.) I tried to maintain a laptop testbox in -tip testing with netconsole for a time - but it was quite a bit of pain so I eventually dropped it. (Not that the simple boot + kernel build test that -tip does would have uncovered this particular bug.) Maybe a tester or two saw the 'dead on resume' bug and didn't bother reporting it, because it's a very difficult category of bug to debug short of a full bisection? Thanks, Ingo