From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752559AbdCEX66 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:58:58 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:37825 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752442AbdCEX65 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:52:00 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: linux-next: stats (Was: Linux 4.11-rc1) Message-ID: <20170306105200.58e8143b@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 13:41:04 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > It _does_ feel like there was more stuff that I was asked to pull than > was in linux-next. That always happens, but seems to have happened > more now than usually. Comparing to the linux-next tree at the time of > the 4.10 release, almost 18% of the non-merge commits were not in > Linux-next. That seems higher than usual, although I guess Stephen > Rothwell has actual numbers from past merges. > > Now, about a quarter of the patches that weren't in linux-next do end > up having the same patch ID as something that was, so some of it was > due to just rebasing. But still - we have about 13% of the merge > window that wasn't in linux-next when 4.10 was released. > > Looking at the sources of that, there's a few different classes: > > - fixes. > > This is obviously ok and inevitable. I don't expect everything to > have been in linux-next, after all. > > - the statx() systen call thing. > > Yeah, I'll allow this one too, because quite frankly, the first > version of that patch was posted over six years ago. > > - there's the quite noticeable split-up series > > This one was posted and discussed before the merge window, and > needed to be merged late (and even then caused some conflicts). So it > had real reasons for late inclusion. > > - a couple of subsystems. drm, Infiniband, watchdog and btrfs stand out. My stats: As usual, the executive friendly graph is at http://neuling.org/linux-next-size.html :-) (No merge commits counted, next-20170220 was the first linux-next after the merge window opened.) Commits in v4.11-rc1 (relative to v4.10): 10960 Commits in next-20170220: 9791 Commits with the same SHA1: 9016 Commits with the same patch_id: 479 (1) Commits with the same subject line: 68 (1) (1) not counting those in the lines above. So commits in -rc1 that were in next-20170220: 9563 87% [ v4.10-rc1 like this: Commits in v4.10-rc1 (relative to v4.9): 11455 Commits in next-20161212: 10625 Commits with the same SHA1: 9927 Commits with the same patch_id: 437 (1) Commits with the same subject line: 25 (1) (1) not counting those in the lines above. So commits in -rc1 that were in next-20161212: 10389 90% And v4.9-rc1 like this: Commits in v4.9-rc1 (relative to v4.8): 14308 Commits in next-20161004: 13539 Commits with the same SHA1: 12716 Commits with the same patch_id: 485 (1) Commits with the same subject line: 33 (1) (1) not counting those in the lines above. So commits in -rc1 that were in next-20161004: 13234 92% So this time we have slightly more rebasing and overall more "extra" commits. ] Some breakdown of the list of extra commits (relative to next-20170220) in -rc1: Top ten first word of commit summary: 142 sched 117 drm 72 net 66 ib 63 watchdog 61 btrfs 60 scsi 48 f2fs 43 tools 29 perf Top ten authors: 146 mingo@kernel.org 46 bskeggs@redhat.com 45 len.brown@intel.com 39 bart.vanassche@sandisk.com 32 linux@roeck-us.net 32 acourbot@nvidia.com 28 nborisov@suse.com 26 idryomov@gmail.com 22 hch@lst.de 21 anna.schumaker@netapp.com Top ten commiters: 217 davem@davemloft.net 161 mingo@kernel.org 88 bskeggs@redhat.com 79 dledford@redhat.com 64 linux@roeck-us.net 63 anna.schumaker@netapp.com 59 martin.petersen@oracle.com 58 dsterba@suse.com 57 axboe@fb.com 52 idryomov@gmail.com There are also 229 commits in next-20170220 that didn't make it into v4.11-rc1. Top ten first word of commit summary: 19 mm 18 arm 12 edac 9 keys 9 befs 7 random 6 target 6 coresight 6 bf609 5 edac.txt Top ten authors: 19 mchehab@kernel.org 17 akpm@linux-foundation.org 11 dhowells@redhat.com 10 olof@lixom.net 9 luisbg@osg.samsung.com 8 viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk 7 arnd@arndb.de 6 varun@chelsio.com 5 sonic.zhang@analog.com 4 realmz6@gmail.com Some of Andrew's patches are fixes for other patches in his tree (and have been merged into those). Top ten commiters: 76 sfr@canb.auug.org.au 20 mchehab@kernel.org 16 steven@ubuntu-virtualbox.(none) 11 dhowells@redhat.com 10 olof@lixom.net 9 luisbg@osg.samsung.com 8 viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk 7 tytso@mit.edu 7 bart.vanassche@sandisk.com 6 mathieu.poirier@linaro.org Those commits by me are from the quilt series (mainly Andrew's mmotm tree). The steven@ubuntu-virtualbox.(none) ones are form a very out of date blackfin tree that has now been removed from linux-next. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell