Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:34:40 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        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>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
Message-ID: <20180116173440.GA15893@kroah.com>
References: <CACT4Y+bvA6hrVT5u-Cy_zJLNTM5SYf9kt+sXYmfq13rPGfiqFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABXOdTf+CoB6EkhG1yPtB4NNtohbex=ebHLX7YW5TyQQGn9byw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+aGMoobn069+Lq1BT2YGqi9qYY9vHFtiXT2DLsJ5ZUh9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote:
> >> 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 ?
> >
> > FTR, from Guenter on another thread:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > If we agree on some list of important branches, and what branches
> > specifically should not be tested with automatic reporting, I think it
> > will benefit everybody.
> > +Fengguang, can you please share your list and rationale behind it?
> 
> The problem is testing linux-next and then using get-maintainer.pl to
> report the problem.
> 
> If you are resource limited I would start by testing Linus's tree to
> find the existing bugs, and to get a baseline.  Using get-maintainer.pl
> is fine for sending emails to developers there.

I second this, almost all of the issues you are hitting are usually in
Linus's tree.  Let's make that "clean" first, before messing around and
adding 100+ other random developer's trees into the mix :)

thanks,

greg k-h