MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+bvA6hrVT5u-Cy_zJLNTM5SYf9kt+sXYmfq13rPGfiqFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACT4Y+bvA6hrVT5u-Cy_zJLNTM5SYf9kt+sXYmfq13rPGfiqFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 01:45:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CABXOdTf+CoB6EkhG1yPtB4NNtohbex=ebHLX7YW5TyQQGn9byw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on
> syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many
> trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a
> staging area before upstream tree, with the intention that patches are
> _tested_ there, is they are not tested there, bugs enter upstream
> tree. And then it takes much longer to get fix into other trees.
>
> So the question is: what trees/branches should be tested? Preferably
> in priority order as syzbot can't test all of them.
>

I always thought that -next existed specifically to give people a
chance to test the code in it. Maybe the question is where to report
the test results ?

Guenter