All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:02:17 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+aGMoobn069+Lq1BT2YGqi9qYY9vHFtiXT2DLsJ5ZUh9Q@mail.gmail.com> (Dmitry Vyukov's message of "Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:58:51 +0100")

Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> 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.

After that I would test the individual tress that are pulled into
linux-next.  So that any issue not found in Linus's tree can be
attributed to the tree you are testing and sent the the appropriate
maintainer.

After that I would consider testing linux-next itself and see if any
issues are caused by the merger of all of those trees.

Eric

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-01-16 17:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-16  7:51 Dmitry Vyukov
2018-01-16  9:45 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-01-16  9:58   ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-01-16 16:58     ` Guenter Roeck
2018-01-16 17:02     ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2018-01-16 17:34       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-01-22 13:32         ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-06-09  6:31           ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-09 22:17             ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-10  1:51               ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2018-06-10  6:11                 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-06-11  1:22                   ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2018-06-15  9:54                     ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-06-18  4:52                       ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-06-18  6:10                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-06-18 13:54                       ` Alan Cox
2018-06-26 10:54               ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-26 14:16                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2018-06-26 14:38                   ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-06-26 14:54                     ` Guenter Roeck
2018-06-26 20:37                       ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-05 10:49                         ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-06 23:26                           ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-10  0:35                             ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-10  2:13                               ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-01-19  1:48     ` Fengguang Wu
2018-01-22 13:34       ` Dmitry Vyukov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com \
    --to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=groeck@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --subject='Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.