From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 317B4B1B for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C023F19C for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 19:28:14 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <20150707182814.GG11162@sirena.org.uk> References: <20150707092434.GE11162@sirena.org.uk> <559BEF61.8050904@roeck-us.net> <20150707171819.GF11162@sirena.org.uk> <559C11C4.80301@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BqNvIJgrK1/MQy2W" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <559C11C4.80301@roeck-us.net> Cc: Shuah Khan , Kevin Hilman , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, grant@secretlab.ca, Tyler Baker , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Testing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --BqNvIJgrK1/MQy2W Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 10:52:04AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 07/07/2015 10:18 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >Off the top of my head the automated ones I'm aware of are Olof's build > >& boot test, Dan running smatch and I think some other static analysis > >stuff, someone (not sure who?) running some coccinelle stuff, Coverity > >and I've got a builder too. > Plus mine, of course. Only part missing is automated bisect and e-mail > if something starts failing. > Which reminds me - do you use buildbot ? I think you are sending automated > e-mail on failures. It would help me a lot if someone had automated bisect > and the ability to e-mail results using buildbot to get me started. No, not me - all my failure reports are lovingly hand crafted using traditional artisan techniques. Kevin, Tyler and Fengguang have things but apart from 0day I think everything is still manually triggered. > Not really sure what to do about it. What turned out to help in the last > two companies I worked for was automatic revert of broken patches. That > sounds radical and I dislike it myself, but it helped. Perhaps that's something we should be discussing? It may be something that we just evolve a solution for as we proceed though - right now it's largely theoretical. For -next Stephen will often carry extra patches that make sense. --BqNvIJgrK1/MQy2W Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVnBo9AAoJECTWi3JdVIfQZxoH/i2TlJhkU5tPr8bmNJySeBTn +Co68MTcUKg/ObAN0DGQcrKMh8xCoL6hXDpAWb4vBqStP5yL+jrXyO5n659QU66m G+1jC35wbM8bYgi7ADVm0W0zX9kB69afmnx0zMYmf6tq1aSRUXek43WqnPqyT5pv zI8JLa19//Cga/TFQcxAK2COcst5iduN33pIWpgBDXDJCvsWvGeKjrYUtapBLQLr js8TtICC5FVWN+FQjkVTMM3IW61jZtnulPMyFyur6Zc7b+jMFxkRdNYWvpBQuUY7 1g4Kd87tUjrla0odcdlogTj7xUwZBZKoCFXuUIwQDXa64X1BPttvSwD7nGLWWvc= =8r93 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BqNvIJgrK1/MQy2W--