From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26258C3F2D1 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 05:25:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C6620842 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 05:25:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726273AbgCDFZu (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2020 00:25:50 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:39158 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725810AbgCDFZu (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2020 00:25:50 -0500 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j9MXV-0007tb-6m; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:25:49 -0700 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1j9MXU-0001BC-FT; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:25:49 -0700 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Al Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20200223011154.GY23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200301215125.GA873525@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200302003926.GM23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <87o8tdgfu8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20200304002434.GO23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:23:39 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20200304002434.GO23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Wed, 4 Mar 2020 00:24:34 +0000") Message-ID: <87wo80g0bo.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1j9MXU-0001BC-FT;;;mid=<87wo80g0bo.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1/UTv8fSOWm0P3BimXgYvHzkz1l3lFMik8= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3) X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Al Viro writes: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:48:31PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > I hope it gets serious beating, though - it touches pretty much every >> > codepath in pathname resolution. Is there any way to sic the bots on >> > a branch, short of "push it into -next and wait for screams"? >> >> Last I looked pushing a branch to kernel.org was enough for the >> kbuild bots. Sending patches to LKML is also enough for those bots. >> >> I don't know if that kind of bot is what you need testing your code. > > Build bots are generally nice, but in this case... pretty much all of > the changes are in fs/namei.c, which is not all that sensitive to > config/architecture/whatnot. Sure, something like "is audit enabled?" > may affect the build problems, but not much beyond that. > > What was that Intel-run(?) bot that posts "such-and-such metrics has > 42% regression on such-and-such commit" from time to time? > > Subject: [locking/qspinlock] 7b6da71157: unixbench.score 8.4% improvement > seems to be the latest of that sort, > From: kernel test robot > > Not sure how much of pathwalk-heavy loads is covered by profiling > bots of that sort, unfortunately... ;-/ Do the xfs-tests cover that sort of thing? The emphasis is stress testing the filesystem not the VFS but there is a lot of overlap between the two. Eric