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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 87183C04AAF for ; Sat, 18 May 2019 21:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62ED420873 for ; Sat, 18 May 2019 21:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729583AbfERVl4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 17:41:56 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:45252 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727600AbfERVlz (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 17:41:55 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hS75R-0006cQ-1J; Sat, 18 May 2019 21:41:49 +0000 Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 22:41:49 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Theodore Ts'o , Dmitry Vyukov , syzbot , linux-fsdevel , LKML , sabin.rapan@gmail.com, syzkaller-bugs Subject: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in do_mount Message-ID: <20190518214148.GI17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <00000000000014285d05765bf72a@google.com> <0000000000000eaf23058912af14@google.com> <20190517134850.GG17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20190518162142.GH17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20190518201843.GD14277@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190518201843.GD14277@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 04:18:43PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > What would you prefer to happen in such situations? Commit summaries > > modified enough to confuse CI tools into *NOT* noticing that those > > are versions of the same patch? Some kind of metadata telling the > > same tools that such-and-such commits got folded in (and they might > > have been split in process, with parts folded into different spots > > in the series, at that)? > > > > Because "never fold in, never reorder, just accumulate patches in > > the end of the series" is not going to fly. For a lot of reasons. > > As far as I'm concerned, this is the tools problem; I don't think it's > worth it for developers to feel they need to twist themselves into > knots just to try to make the CI tools' life easier. FWIW, what _is_ the underlying problem? It looks like the basic issue is with rebase/cherry-pick of a commit; it seems to be trying to handle two things: 1) report X' in commit C' is similar to report X in commit C, with C' apparently being a rebase/cherry-pick/whatnot of C; don't want to lose that information 2) reports X, Y and Z in commit C don't seem to be reoccuring on the current tree, without any claimed fix in it. Want to keep an eye on those. ... and getting screwed by a mix of those two: reports X, Y and Z in commit C don't seem to be reoccuring on the current tree, even though it does contain a commit C' that seems to be a rebase of C. A fix for C is *not* present as an identifiable commit in the current tree. Was it lost or was it renamed/merged with other commits/replaced by another fix? What I don't quite understand is why does the tool care. Suppose we have a buggy commit + clearly marked fix. And see a report very similar to the original ones, on the tree with alleged fix clearly present. IME the earlier reports are often quite relevant - the fix might have been incomplete/racy/etc., and in that case the old reports (*AND* pointer to the commit that was supposed to have fixed those) are very useful. What's the problem these reminders are trying to solve? Computational resources eaten by comparisons?