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 FNlnACGEHFuSRwAAmS7hNA ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 01:51:29 +0000 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D5E05608BA; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 01:51:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.codeaurora.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=thunk.org header.i=@thunk.org header.b="DIwkJhP3" 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=-2.8 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_DKIM_INVALID 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 20640605A2; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 01:51:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 20640605A2 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu 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 S1753591AbeFJBvY (ORCPT + 25 others); Sat, 9 Jun 2018 21:51:24 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:53406 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753555AbeFJBvW (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jun 2018 21:51:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wdxLkN0gVRdrEWsrzryhWI3REiFOulFMro7XdrCMGew=; b=DIwkJhP3NEqb7figeUOytV2Z52 JLVBWc0U+Aw2FCyUm8ifP3A4T7mCHyyLaNSWqJ0ZOg0TPTzDjTIsbRIOyNshk6uJg9Gca9Ys94LVs dWvYbSFVWlP7mwPxAJsjTGK516Qjq0G+9g2gzjDyw63vFVWg8ZWjGHjfYSQeygWVCW0U=; Received: from root (helo=callcc.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fRpVc-0004SH-I3; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 01:51:08 +0000 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id C3C787A4474; Sat, 9 Jun 2018 21:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 21:51:07 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Tetsuo Handa , Dmitry Vyukov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Eric W. Biederman" , Guenter Roeck , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , syzkaller , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot Message-ID: <20180610015107.GC5020@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Linus Torvalds , Tetsuo Handa , Dmitry Vyukov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Eric W. Biederman" , Guenter Roeck , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , syzkaller , Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Wu Fengguang References: <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com> <20180116173440.GA15893@kroah.com> <81a0eb59-c204-9e36-13b7-88c2ea99ceab@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:17:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Syzbot is always getting improved to find new classes of problems. So the only way to get a baseline would be to use an older version of syzbot for linux-next, and to have it suppress sending e-mails about failures that are duplicates that were already found via the mainline tree. Then periodically, once version N has run for M weeks, and has spewed some large number of new failures to LKML, then you could promote version N to be run against linux-next, and so hopefully the only thing it would report against linux-next are regressions, and not duplicates of new bugs also being found via the latest and greatest version of syzbot being run against the mainline kernel. - Ted