Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:23:38 -0700 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert "nios2: Convert __pte_free_tlb() to use ptdescs" |
| |
On 6/27/23 15:35, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 15:14, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> This reverts commit 6ebe94baa2b9ddf3ccbb7f94df6ab26234532734. >> >> The patch "nios2: Convert __pte_free_tlb() to use ptdescs" was supposed >> to go together with a patchset that Vishal Moola had planned taking it >> through the mm tree. By just having this patch, all NIOS2 builds are >> broken. > > This is now at least the third time just this merge window where some > base tree was broken, and people thought that linux-next is some kind > of testing ground for it all. > > NO! > > Linux-next is indeed for testing, and for finding situations where > there are interactions between different trees. > > But linux-next is *not* a replacement for "this tree has to work on > its own". THAT testing needs to be done independently, and *before* a > tree hits linux-next. > > It is *NOT* ok to say "this will work in combination with that other > tree". EVERY SINGLE TREE needs to work on its own, because otherwise > you cannot bisect the end result sanely. > > We apparently had the NIOS2 tree being broken. And the RCU tree was > broken. And the KUnit tree was broken. >
Actually, this one is broken in linux-next as well because it was pulled into it, but the context patches needed to make it work (compile) are not there. It is also broken in next/pending-fixes for the same reason.
Only this happened so quick that by the time I noticed and reported and argued that, no, I did not try to apply this patch on its own, the pull request into mainline was already sent and applied.
Problem with linux-next is that it is so badly broken that it would take a full-time position to track down all its failures. Then there are those last-minute patches added in the week (or days) before the commit window opens which break it again. This is one example, but there is at least one more in linux-next (and pending-fixes); see https://kerneltests.org/builders/next-sh-pending-fixes/builds/822/steps/buildcommand/logs/stdio
Guenter
> In all those cases, the base tree did not compile properly on its own, > and linux-next "magically fixed" it by either having Stephen Rothwell > literally fix the build breakage by hand, or by having some other tree > hide the problem. > > This is very much not ok. > > I'm not sure why it happened so much this release, but this needs to > stop. People need to realize that you can't just throw shit at the > wall and see if it sticks. You need to test your own trees *first*, > and *independently* of other peoples trees. > > Then, if you have done basic testing, you can then have it in > linux-next and that hopefully then finds any issues with bad > interactions with other trees, and maybe also ends up getting more > coverage testing on odd architectures and with odd configurations. > > But linux-next must not in *any* way be a replacement for doing basic > testing on your own tree first. > > Linus
| |