Hi Ingo,

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:44:28 +0200 Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

In terms of test coverage, at least for our trees, less than 1% of 
the bugs we handle get reported in a linux-next context - and most 
of the bugs that get reported (against say the scheduler tree) are 
related to rare architectures.

I expect that most bugs get reported and fixed before code gets to
linux-next (in fact one of the prerequisites for being in linux-next is
that code has been tested as well as possible).

In fact, i checked, there were _zero_ x86 bugs reported against 
linux-next and solved against it between v2.6.30-rc1 and v2.6.30:

   git log --grep=next -i v2.6.30-rc1..v2.6.30 arch/x86/

Doing it over the full cycle shows one commit altogether - a Xen 
build failure. In fact, i just checked the whole stabilization cycle 
for the whole kernel (v2.6.30-rc1..v2.6.30-final), and there were 
only 5 linux-next originated patches, most of them build failures.

Nice set of figures.  For some other context, between April 6 and June 9
(2.6.30-rc1 to 2.6.30) I sent 50 emails with subjects like "linux-next:
xxx tree build failure".  What results from those emails?  I sometimes
don't even hear back.  Almost all of the failures get fixed.

A lot of these probably also get discovered independently.  I don't
really care as long as they do get fixed.

One of those failures was a sparc build failure due to a change in the
tip-core tree (see commit d2de688891909b148efe83a6fc9520a9cd6015f0).
Another report produced commit 27b19565fe4ca5b0e9d2ae98ce4b81ca728bf445.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/