From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org by pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org (Dovecot) with LMTP id dwVgFAJSHFuoMAAAmS7hNA ; Sat, 09 Jun 2018 22:17:38 +0000 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1A6EC607E4; Sat, 9 Jun 2018 22:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.codeaurora.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="WAuy4Jjn" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FBDC6074D; Sat, 9 Jun 2018 22:17:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 6FBDC6074D Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753446AbeFIWRe (ORCPT + 25 others); Sat, 9 Jun 2018 18:17:34 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f66.google.com ([209.85.214.66]:52998 "EHLO mail-it0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753408AbeFIWRd (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jun 2018 18:17:33 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f66.google.com with SMTP id m194-v6so6381704itg.2 for ; Sat, 09 Jun 2018 15:17:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EH+S2aO2joJdw7kHwHtakM3W5r3IVpyT0L2ElCqfKP0=; b=WAuy4JjnZhZfypI+yeFtNGNVTduxiA2enxhU/skf/+X55PHg2jRiObVuFpWVQiztAn a6a92sZFV2UuHmzx9nTpR8RZykfp/GRFqiw9QnBQeP8txZxNw9OtsWupaKWAx2ZjIl5Q qLPKakyY0g99rumRZyN/Iz+9pYukWmA8UcngA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EH+S2aO2joJdw7kHwHtakM3W5r3IVpyT0L2ElCqfKP0=; b=HY3jfjqQd+uuShnLS0c/IKYS2hyA5HDp2nAd911K5a/egziNvHj8M7WvMjocqTrzk4 CHHNKyHrjRlZ2evWCIJ1I5uNFynYYIcpCUTrTgXOiE67PYZ5X9XBqM2/wzYRz5e58LVS Onk8Oqtal3j6LNz8bQcbrGRKMetz1Ux1TL2o3ufus6exEA8Uz8fvtm2C4ICivLcAShCj xfvsp2y0fAtU5eZUe2pXtg/T9ShfqVSlNw9gNOBBrtbZZl4i+BYbDOLv7575f+4fb3dT gh3T66RZD1MvqnyotMoC3i4iXjJUkF/rMoEF5UguyHfdE4TGf9UhoSnTIereLbWvPi+q oBWg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2N2fqfp754Zigz2onun6UUyZmf6i/e1Fdn5/4Ce4wKTzSAElrE /iCjT6Pf3+bES1mX6Uldnf4doyi5vV71tu0hkgI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLU7aIMLTZqxrFz3jQVFiZFzcE1vPnF08DwzmuTEOwictSs1k+tsSyj+IqNk0B2MSKvlxmEbDTu8xREMtvnYcs= X-Received: by 2002:a24:3cd7:: with SMTP id m206-v6mr5950447ita.113.1528582652593; Sat, 09 Jun 2018 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com> <20180116173440.GA15893@kroah.com> <81a0eb59-c204-9e36-13b7-88c2ea99ceab@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <81a0eb59-c204-9e36-13b7-88c2ea99ceab@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Eric W. Biederman" , Guenter Roeck , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Theodore Ts'o" , Andrew Morton , syzkaller , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Wu Fengguang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tetsuo Handa 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