[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzJaHyKBg_PTS85Y5RxUsQEerJ_Lc5HY1dd1YNztf==Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> > FTR I've just dropped linux-next and mmots from syzbot.
>
> I hope that we can test linux-next on syzbot, as a tree for testing debug
> printk() patches.
I think it would be lovely to get linux-next back eventually, but it
sounds like it's just too noisy right now, and yes, we should have a
baseline for the standard tree first.
But once there's a "this is known for the baseline", I think adding
linux-next back in and then maybe even have linux-next simply just
kick out trees that cause problems would be a good idea.
Right now linux-next only kicks things out based on build issues (or
extreme merge issues), afaik. But it *would* be good to also have
things like syzbot do quality control on linux-next.
Because the more things get found and fixed before they even hit my
tree, the better.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists