From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EEF110FD for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:01:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759752103; cv=none; b=hCbwLwrbBWsNqesN9ru/xc70T2fJ8ZsVrAnbywSlE1Vqcqj6h/lM0ri9C1qCNSWYLABh8DM1CXCljXJaAmQABtpp4eVonkUlF2/WxAiyCSHwIEXgWYzFeajC3vAjkX5IJ88kz/k2rRImjTWnj6rYx5p0c00X+RPo6hpuzMQDSek= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759752103; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KJCCmXxR0Jo79346y4t9YN9VEcxsTs6ZNPs0qbDdQDg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=VYrnBEcOqNCFUV4yroomwqoZv/45UKt2Lj8cfSh/sAN9tQ2Dxzcg97/e1dhfjUWBo1xtxGh4LxhQDhJcP/GYDmE1clmCwwVowF8BtymlhJdrYhcRAIZ1wxiDJYkWbZTtwQOmuJrwItrF3lXWeiuJ1ae/EtSzz6e2vuGR+AJMGII= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=BEK8hTWg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BEK8hTWg" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83106C4CEF5; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:01:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1759752102; bh=KJCCmXxR0Jo79346y4t9YN9VEcxsTs6ZNPs0qbDdQDg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BEK8hTWgoyceSzzuNRsvb90TKd1ujqMybqezIlUMv6mRlyejsNlP5KZ2AX8cts41C sTuJmAsW8UVhJmI12o9ggNBotjnFgJIkmwMgiDdG/jqrZPwac/23ale9Y0IRI3Bmjs QyjfHywpCEYWM2esSAJGwkPhBUDLCnHsDnBxedjFiNBPjO/bRBIAqZc5/1xLzFE5lJ Q/Nm472zV1PV4PSWTm0Rj3SrGymO2f41CqfeoHi1KGuAhxXSTbdlbVW2+ca0jBFoB/ cAlJAZOLgDb1GSCSTF1sYkarno0DtI61RUKNkdBlUFb/da6Gld2cnxBV9zAxtHj8mn uKSeAKwIWl65Q== Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:01:39 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Menglong Dong , Thorsten Blum , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] probes: Update for v6.18 Message-Id: <20251006210139.122cad3973a85f93601082fa@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20251003084426.f2de6028fd74e1af4e13d190@kernel.org> <20251006092743.295205e486acf1b69ca61b89@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:09:02 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 at 17:27, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > Hmm, I applogise this error. I locally ran build tests and it passed. > > But I might missed something. > > So this is why linux-next exists - to get testing with different > configurations, different compiler versions, different architectures > etc. Yes, I have noticed the limitations of creating a local test environment, and I would like to utilize linux-next. > > Local build tests are good, and obviously necessary for some very basic testing. > > And local build test can be perfectly sufficient - if it's some small > obvious fix, it's often simply not worth it waiting for a few days for > linux-next to get it merged and tested. > > And no, linux-next isn't perfect, and won't find everything anyway. > > And even the most trivial small change that quite reasonably didn't go > through linux-next because it was so simple can also end up breaking > things. > > So none of this is some kind of "absolute black-and-white rule", and > none of this _guarantees_ that everything always works. > > Even when everybody does the best they can, something will > occasionally be missed. I definitely accept that we're not perfect. > > But big new features coming in during the merge window had better be > extensively checked _some_ way. Yes, that was my fault. > > If I find problems in my fairly limited sanity-check build tests, I get unhappy. > > It's one thing if it's some little mistake that I feel reasonably > missed testing for some understandable reason. > > But if I get the feeling that the problem was that there just wasn't > enough care to begin with, that's when I go "nope, this will need to > wait for another release and be done properly". > > And that's what happened this time around. That wasn't some trivial > little change, and it clearly didn't get a lot of coverage testing. I'm very sorry about causing this. > > It should have gone through linux-next, and the problem would have > been found there instead of when I tried to merge it. Next time I'm sure the features are at least tested on linux-next. I'm trying to update my PR checker to check it too. > > Linus -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google)