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;
Date:   Sat, 9 Jun 2018 21:51:07 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        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>,
        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>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
Message-ID: <20180610015107.GC5020@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        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>,
        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>
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>
 <CA+55aFzJaHyKBg_PTS85Y5RxUsQEerJ_Lc5HY1dd1YNztf==Wg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzJaHyKBg_PTS85Y5RxUsQEerJ_Lc5HY1dd1YNztf==Wg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:17:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

Syzbot is always getting improved to find new classes of problems.  So
the only way to get a baseline would be to use an older version of
syzbot for linux-next, and to have it suppress sending e-mails about
failures that are duplicates that were already found via the mainline
tree.

Then periodically, once version N has run for M weeks, and has spewed
some large number of new failures to LKML, then you could promote
version N to be run against linux-next, and so hopefully the only
thing it would report against linux-next are regressions, and not
duplicates of new bugs also being found via the latest and greatest
version of syzbot being run against the mainline kernel.

						- Ted