[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:56 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Guenter Roeck <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <> 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.

Sure, go ahead.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-16 11:02    [W:0.066 / U:8.876 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site