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=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 ACCEBC2BA2B for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0772078E for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:12:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2F0772078E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4E8328E0039; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 498FC8E0003; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:12:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3D6108E0039; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:12:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0197.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232358E0003 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABA5180AD802 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:12:29 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76691984418.17.start79_32cda5d702724 X-HE-Tag: start79_32cda5d702724 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3698 Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp [202.181.97.72]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fsav402.sakura.ne.jp (fsav402.sakura.ne.jp [133.242.250.101]) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 03ADCHwq022769; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:12:17 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (202.181.97.72) by fsav402.sakura.ne.jp (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav402.sakura.ne.jp); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:12:17 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav402.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (M106072142033.v4.enabler.ne.jp [106.72.142.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 03ADC9vC022655 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:12:16 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: Two small fixes for recent syzbot reports To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Qian Cai , Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Peter Xu , LKML , Linux-MM References: <9C21961E-24D3-4C97-A5AB-B70451E4F952@lca.pw> From: Tetsuo Handa Message-ID: <76e8bbed-21d1-22e1-4148-5a5766652c0d@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:12:04 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9C21961E-24D3-4C97-A5AB-B70451E4F952@lca.pw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2020/04/10 6:14, Qian Cai wrote: > > >> On Apr 9, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:58 AM Qian Cai wrote: >>> >>> Agree to make a big deal part. My point is that when kicking trees of linux-next, it also could reduce the exposure of many patches (which could be bad) to linux-next and miss valuable early testing either from robots or human. >> >> Sure. But I'd want to be notified when something gets kicked out, so >> that I then know not to pull it. >> >> So it would reduce the exposure of patches, but it would also make >> sure those patches then don't make it upstream. >> >> Untested patches is fine - as long as nobody else has to suffer through them. > > Excellent. It now very much depends on how Stephen will notify you when > a tree, a patchset or even a developer should be blacklisted for some time > to make this a success. > Since patch flow forms tree structure, I don't know whether maintainers can afford remembering which tree, patchset or developer should be blacklisted when problems come from leaf git trees. By the way... Removing problematic trees might confuse "#syz test:" request, for developers might ask syzbot to test proposed patches on a kernel which does not contain problematic trees. In lucky case, test request fails as patch failure or build failure. But in unlucky case, syzbot fails to detect that proposed patch was tested on a kernel without problematic trees. A bit related to https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/1609 .