From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751102AbeAPRen (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:34:43 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:38514 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750812AbeAPRem (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:34:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:34:40 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , Guenter Roeck , LKML , Theodore Ts'o , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , syzkaller , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot Message-ID: <20180116173440.GA15893@kroah.com> References: <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Dmitry Vyukov writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> I always thought that -next existed specifically to give people a > >> chance to test the code in it. Maybe the question is where to report > >> the test results ? > > > > FTR, from Guenter on another thread: > > > >> Interesting. Assuming that refers to linux-next, not linux-net, that > >> may explain why linux-next tends to deteriorate. I wonder if I should > >> drop it from my testing as well. I'll be happy to follow whatever the > >> result of this exchange is and do the same. > > > > If we agree on some list of important branches, and what branches > > specifically should not be tested with automatic reporting, I think it > > will benefit everybody. > > +Fengguang, can you please share your list and rationale behind it? > > The problem is testing linux-next and then using get-maintainer.pl to > report the problem. > > If you are resource limited I would start by testing Linus's tree to > find the existing bugs, and to get a baseline. Using get-maintainer.pl > is fine for sending emails to developers there. I second this, almost all of the issues you are hitting are usually in Linus's tree. Let's make that "clean" first, before messing around and adding 100+ other random developer's trees into the mix :) thanks, greg k-h