Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <e633e50a-a72a-0d55-7c96-a1853eff1b8e@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Sat, 3 Sep 2022 12:27:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.0
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [KVM] c3e0c8c2e8:
 leaking-addresses.proc..data..ro_after_init.
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
To:     Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, regressions@lists.linux.dev
References: <YvpZYGa1Z1M38YcR@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
 <04ce8956-3285-345a-4ce5-b78500729e42@leemhuis.info>
 <YxCyhTES9Nk+S94y@rli9-MOBL1.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <57c596f7-014f-1833-3173-af3bad2ca45d@leemhuis.info>
 <YxH2X8gMWyJeKPRa@rli9-MOBL1.ccr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
In-Reply-To: <YxH2X8gMWyJeKPRa@rli9-MOBL1.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 02.09.22 14:26, Philip Li wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 12:54:05PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 01.09.22 15:24, Philip Li wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 02:12:39PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the encouragement :-) The flow/process is very helpful. We will follow
> up a few things before we resuming the tracking
> [...]

Great, thx!

>>> Usuaally, we also ping/discuss with developer when an issue enters
>>> mainline if there's no response. This is one reason we tries to connect
>>> with regzbot to track the issue on mainline, but we missed the point that
>>> you mention below (it need look important).
>>
>> I just want to prevent the list of tracked regressions becoming too long
>> (and thus obscure) due to many issues that are not worth tracking, as I
>> fear people will then start to ignore regzbot and its reports. :-/
> 
> got it, we will be very careful to selectly tracking. Maybe we don't need
> track the issue if it is responsed by developer quickly and can be solved
> directly.

Maybe, but that will always bear the risk that something gets in the way
(say a big problem is found in the proposed fix) and the regression in
the end gets forgotten and remains unfixed -- which my tracking tries to
prevent. Hence I'd say doing it the other way around (adding all
regressions reported by the 0-day folks to regzbot and remove reports
after a week or two if it's apparently something that can be ignored)
would be the better approach.

> But only track the one that is valuable, while it need more discussion, extra
> testing, investigation and so one, that such problem can't be straight forward
> to solve in short time. For such case, the tracking helps us to get back to this
> even when there's a pause, like developer is blocked by testing or need switch
> to other effort. This is just my thinking.

Yeah, the problem is just: it's easy to forget the regression to the
tracking. :-/

>> Are you or someone from the 0day team an LPC? Then we could discuss this
>> in person there.
> 
> We will join 2 MC (Rust, Testing) but all virtually, thus not able to discuss in
> person :-( 

Okay, was worth asking. :-D

> But we are glad to join any further discussion or follow the suggested
> rule if you have some discussion with other CI and reporters.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we'll find a way to make everybody happy.

Ciao, Thorsten