Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180508023439.GA8514@sasha-vm>
References: <20180501200019.GA7397@sasha-vm> <20180501205448.GE10479@thunk.org>
 <20180501211551.GI2714@sirena.org.uk> <CAKMK7uHjA27K8y-kwYFyhLy3cSkJJw8Oe1gP=3hZXdfxcWAcNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180502194632.GB18390@sasha-vm> <20180503020550.GP2714@sirena.org.uk>
 <20180503031000.GC29205@thunk.org> <0276fcda-0385-8f22-dbdb-e063f7ed8bbe@roeck-us.net>
 <20180503224217.GR2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com> <20180508023439.GA8514@sasha-vm>
From:   Justin Forbes <jmforbes@linuxtx.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 08:58:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFxkdAqEK3Kv1Q8Jy4KZ7AHPXAA7ux6CYsQ4m6grKwFGwzNrXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>
Cc:     Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, "w@1wt.eu" <w@1wt.eu>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Sasha Levin
<Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:09:05PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>* Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> [180503 22:44]:
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:52:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>
>>> > As for -next, me and others stopped reporting bugs in it, because when we do
>>> > we tend to get flamed for the "noise". Is anyone aware (or cares) that mips
>>> > and nds32 images don't build ? Soaking clothes in an empty bathtub won't make
>>> > them wet, and bugs in code which no one builds, much less tests or uses, won't
>>> > be found.
>>>
>>> You've been flamed for testing -next?  That's not been my experience and
>>> frankly it's pretty horrifying that it's happening.  Testing is pretty
>>> much the whole point of -next existing in the first place so you have to
>>> wonder why people are putting their trees there if they don't want
>>> testing.  I have seen a few issues with people reporting bugs on old
>>> versions of -next but otherwise...
>>
>>Yes I agree testing Linux next is very important. That's the best way for
>>maintainers to ensure a usable -rc1 after a merge window. And then for
>>the -rc cycle, there not much of need for chasing bugs to get things working.
>>
>>Bugs reported for Linux next often seem to get fixed or reverted faster
>>compared to the -rc cycle too. I think that's because people realize that
>>their code will not get merged until it's been fixed.
>>
>>So some daily testing of Linux next can save a lot scrambling after the
>>merge window :)
>>
>>Users don't usually upgrade kernels until after later -rc releases or only
>>after major releases so that probably explains some of the -rc cycle fixes.
>
> Tony, I'm curious, how many users are you aware of who actually run
> Linus's tree? All the users I've encountered so far on Azure seem to be
> running something based on -stable.

I couldn't tell you the number of users we have running rawhide
kernels (daily builds of Linus's tree), but it is a positive integer.
We do get bug reports on things, sometimes a day after Linus commits
them.

>
> I can't really get any solid statistics about that on my end both
> because I don't have visibility inside user VMs (I don't actually have
> prod access believe it or not), and even if I had it would probably be
> confidential, so I'm just basing this on reports from user's I've seen
> so far.
>
> I think that a question we should be asking ourselves is whether we
> should be basing our decisions here on the assumption that (pretty much)
> no one runs Linus's tree anymore?