[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bphk2t0i1oxjy=jNDmVO=OfjbitM=vdcMMDOd0zS-jGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:51:39 +0100
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes the branches on linux-next are experimental crap. If someone
>> adds an experimental memory allocator to linux-next before discovering
>> it causes all kinds of problems I don't want bug reports about my code
>> not being able to allocate memory because the memory allocator was bad.
>>
>> If you don't have the resources to test the individual branches of
>> linux-next please just test Linus's tree. That will be much more
>> meaningful and productive.
>
> I have to agree with Eric here, the reason why Fengguang Wu's 0-day
> testing robot is much better received by developers is that he does
> not test linux-net,
I will remove linux-next if there is a general agreement that it's not
useful. Though, I've heard different opinions from kernel developers
as well. I will write a separate email asking what branches should be
tested.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists