From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754407AbbJGOVq (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:21:46 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:37886 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753178AbbJGOVp (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:21:45 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,649,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="786702700" Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:21:33 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , josh@joshtriplett.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, Lai Jiangshan , oleg@redhat.com, rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, Mathieu Desnoyers , kbuild-all@01.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, bobby prani , "Paul E. McKenney" , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move rcu_report_exp_rnp() to allow consolidation Message-ID: <20151007142133.GA18322@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <20151007115046.GK11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <201510072021.GNkjQ4uR%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20151007121751.GG17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20151007134432.GA15834@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20151007135529.GG3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151007135529.GG3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 09:44:32PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > Wu, is there a tag one can include to ward off this patch sucking robot > > > prematurely? > > > > Yes. The best way may be to push the patches to a git tree known to > > 0day robot: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/linux > > > > So that it's tested first there. You'll then get private email reports > > if it's a private git branch. > > Right, but if I can't be bothered to compile test a patch, I also cannot > be bothered to stuff it into git :-) OK, that's understandable. > > We may also add a rule: only send private reports for patches with > > "RFC", "Not-yet-signed-off-by:", etc. > > How about not building when there's no "^Signed-off-by:" at all? That's a good idea: no need to test quick demo-of-idea patches. > Even private build fails for patches like this -- esp. 3+ -- gets > annoying real quick. > > Also note that this 'patch' has: $subject ~ /^Re:/, nor did it have > "^Subject:" like headers in the body. That's good clues, too. So how about make the rule Skip test if no "^Signed-off-by:" and Subject =~ /^Re:/ For a patch posted inside a discussion thread, as long as it have "^Signed-off-by:", I guess the author is serious and the patch could be tested seriously. Thanks, Fengguang