Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <20180116173440.GA15893@kroah.com>
 <CACT4Y+Yy4YZG54xXfR1QNM0i8aS66BZyCnaD2YuooYo2sGuSLg@mail.gmail.com> <81a0eb59-c204-9e36-13b7-88c2ea99ceab@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <81a0eb59-c204-9e36-13b7-88c2ea99ceab@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 9 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzJaHyKBg_PTS85Y5RxUsQEerJ_Lc5HY1dd1YNztf==Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> > FTR I've just dropped linux-next and mmots from syzbot.
>
> I hope that we can test linux-next on syzbot, as a tree for testing debug
> printk() patches.

I think it would be lovely to get linux-next back eventually, but it
sounds like it's just too noisy right now, and yes, we should have a
baseline for the standard tree first.

But once there's a "this is known for the baseline", I think adding
linux-next back in and then maybe even have linux-next simply just
kick out trees that cause problems would be a good idea.

Right now linux-next only kicks things out based on build issues (or
extreme merge issues), afaik. But it *would* be good to also have
things like syzbot do quality control on linux-next.

Because the more things get found and fixed before they even hit my
tree, the better.

                Linus