Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 05:53:54 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QA: Monitor Linux log messages as port of release (candidate)
 testing
Message-ID: <20210907125354.GE4989@roeck-us.net>
References: <458e0604-1fe9-bed0-d22f-84540b05ffb1@molgen.mpg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <458e0604-1fe9-bed0-d22f-84540b05ffb1@molgen.mpg.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:40:31AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Guenter,
> 
> 
> Thank you for testing release candidates and releases [1]. Is your test
> setup documented somewhere?
> 
Not really, except its source is available at github:
	https://github.com/groeck/linux-build-test

> If not happening already, could the Linux messages (at least up to log level
> warning) also be monitored? For example, in Linux 5.14, a new warning snuck
> in by cefc7ca462 (ACPI: PRM: implement OperationRegion handler for the
> PlatformRtMechanism subtype) [2], which could have been caught early on, and
> fixed before the release.
> 
> The test summaries would then also notify about possible behavior change.
> 
Logs are available and can be examined at kerneltests.org/builders.
Reports are generated manually, so it would be way too much effort to add
build warnings to those. Besides, logs are way too noisy to be useful in a
summary e-mail.

Also, Geert's build reports already provide build warnings and errors.
The same applies to reports sent by 0-day. Indeed, I do see at least
one 0-day report against commit cefc7ca46235. What would be the point
of adding yet another report of build warnings on top of that ?

Thanks,
Guenter