MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABXOdTcS6u=Pcb0y1jc9Muo7F9zu8Mvs=c8rcW+9z4g7QJd+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACT4Y+ZNJRzPxxPQNR88vcPxD54mHY-evhMwR39iMsJh_NwaEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180104092552.GA991@amd> <1515058705.7875.25.camel@gmx.de>
 <20180104095628.GA4407@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <CACT4Y+YB_p_p4ORbke1oZfkLSC8rnAD81Ra_fprsPSugGAQy8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87inchsl4h.fsf@xmission.com> <CACT4Y+ayTp5Ocz4Z8hN_gx7i-7gOeHvmLP93ekrE9f=R9gqaiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87efmrt6ul.fsf@xmission.com> <20180116071225.GJ8249@thunk.org>
 <CACT4Y+bphk2t0i1oxjy=jNDmVO=OfjbitM=vdcMMDOd0zS-jGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABXOdTcS6u=Pcb0y1jc9Muo7F9zu8Mvs=c8rcW+9z4g7QJd+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:56:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+a1FGxxrh2k-y1YQtwifCy-RnCWF-J18Rv7ejLiVNO5vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)
To: Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

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.