Message-ID: <28afc90c1b8b51a36ced5b6026d1a64aeb7c0b14.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/42] 6.1.15-rc1 review
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org,
        patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de,
        jonathanh@nvidia.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de,
        mptcp@lists.linux.dev, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com>,
        Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:39:07 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ZAG8dla274kYfxoK@kroah.com>
References: <20230301180657.003689969@linuxfoundation.org>
         <CA+G9fYtDGpgT4dckXD-y-N92nqUxuvue_7AtDdBcHrbOMsDZLg@mail.gmail.com>
         <ZAB6pP3MNy152f+7@kroah.com>
         <CA+G9fYsHbQyQFp+vMnmFKDSQxrmj-VKsexWq-aayxgrY+0O7KQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <CA+G9fYsn+AhWTFA+ZJmfFsM71WGLPOFemZp_vhFMMLUcgcAXKg@mail.gmail.com>
         <9586d0f99e27483b600d8eb3b5c6635b50905d82.camel@redhat.com>
         <CA+G9fYuLQEfeTjx52NxbXV5914YJQ2tVd8k4SJjrAryujPjnqA@mail.gmail.com>
         <ZAG8dla274kYfxoK@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 10:23 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 02:34:05PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 13:34, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > I read the above as you are running self-tests from 6.2.1 on top of a=
n
> > > older (6.1) kernel. Is that correct?
> >=20
> > correct.
> >=20
> > > If so failures are expected;
>=20
> Shouldn't the test be able to know that "new features" are not present
> and properly skip the test for when that happens? =C2=A0

I was not aware that running self-tests on older kernels is a common
practice. I'm surprised that hits mptcp specifically. I think most
networking tests have the same problem.

Additionally, some self-tests check for known bugs/regressions. Running
them on older kernel will cause real trouble, and checking for bug
presence in the running kernel would be problematic at best, I think.

> Otherwise this feels
> like a problem going forward as no one will know if this feature can be
> used or not (assuming it is a new feature and not just a functional
> change.)

I don't understand this later part, could you please re-phrase?

Users should look at release notes and/or official documentation to
know the supported features, not to self-tests output ?!?

Thanks!

Paolo

p.s. for some reasons I did not receive the previous replies, I had to
fetch the conversation from the ML archives.