From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750852AbeAPHv7 (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:51:59 -0500 Received: from mail-pl0-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:35937 "EHLO mail-pl0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750779AbeAPHv6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:51:58 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosMF9Qew6UbK5MhT7QDcnaQ0dygq2BZIlDVIty5Fe6KSr+gqE+yrR10/4OhpAkCo0cHPoS4GXkmmGaUu5QEJF0= MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:51:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: what trees/branches to test on syzbot To: LKML , "Theodore Ts'o" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , syzkaller , Guenter Roeck , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Hello, Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a staging area before upstream tree, with the intention that patches are _tested_ there, is they are not tested there, bugs enter upstream tree. And then it takes much longer to get fix into other trees. So the question is: what trees/branches should be tested? Preferably in priority order as syzbot can't test all of them. Thanks