From: Dmitry Vyukov <email@example.com> To: Fengguang Wu <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Guenter Roeck <email@example.com>, LKML <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <email@example.com>, "Eric W. Biederman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <email@example.com>, Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linus Torvalds <email@example.com>, syzkaller <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stephen Rothwell <email@example.com>, David Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:34:30 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZvGAX0V0B1W8cZtWqEdXdD0AE-Pym_988tL3neu1Xu5w@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Fengguang Wu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:58:51AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck <email@example.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>> 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? > > > 0-day aims to aggressively test as much tree and branches as possible, > including various developer trees, maintainer, linux-next, mainline and > stable trees. Here are the complete list of 800+ trees we monitored: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/linux > > The rationale is obvious. IMHO what really matters here is about > capability rather than rationale: that policy heavily relies on the > fundamental capability of auto bisecting. Once regressions are > bisected, we know the owners of problem to auto send report to, ie. > the first bad commit's author and committer. > > For the bugs that cannot be bisected, they tend to be old ones and > we report more often on mainline tree than linux-next. Thanks for the info, Fengguang. Bisecting is something we need to syzbot in future. However about 50% of syzbot bugs are due to races and are somewhat difficult to bisect reliably.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-22 13:34 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 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 [this message]
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=CACT4Y+ZvGAX0V0B1W8cZtWqEdXdD0AE-Pym_988tL3neu1Xu5w@mail.gmail.com \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --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.