[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPWblP6LFKRcUFcv@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 18:55:48 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+e245f0516ee625aaa412@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
djwong@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, trix@...hat.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [xfs?] INFO: task hung in __fdget_pos (4)
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > Which is pretty much the case for all filesystem bug reports from
>
> I think we should at least consider the option of reducing the number of
> filesystems syzbot tests. Filesystems that are orphaned or that have no
> active maintainers for a long period of time just produce noise.
I wish you good luck in convincing the syzbot maintainers that
testing obsolete, unmaintained and/or deprecated code should be
outside the scope of what syzbot exercises...
> Slapping tags such as [ntfs3?] or [reiserfs?] really don't help to
> reduce the noise.
Yup - they can't be trusted to be correct, so it does nothing to
reduce the noise. There's been two false XFS categorisations
in just the last half a day....
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists