lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes the branches on linux-next are experimental crap. If someone
>>>> adds an experimental memory allocator to linux-next before discovering
>>>> it causes all kinds of problems I don't want bug reports about my code
>>>> not being able to allocate memory because the memory allocator was bad.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't have the resources to test the individual branches of
>>>> linux-next please just test Linus's tree. That will be much more
>>>> meaningful and productive.
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Eric here, the reason why Fengguang Wu's 0-day
>>> testing robot is much better received by developers is that he does
>>> not test linux-net,
>>
>
> 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.
>
> Guenter
>
>> I will remove linux-next if there is a general agreement that it's not
>> useful. Though, I've heard different opinions from kernel developers
>> as well. I will write a separate email asking what branches should be
>> tested.

Let's please move discussion of this topic to "what trees/branches to
test on syzbot" thread. This thread is now about too many things.
Hope you don't mind if I repost your last email there.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-16 10:57    [W:0.090 / U:2.428 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site