Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot | From | Tetsuo Handa <> | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:54:53 +0900 |
| |
On 2018/06/10 7:17, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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 >
I hope we can accept NOW either "reviving linux-next.git" or "allowing debug printk() patches for linux.git". For example, "INFO: task hung in __sb_start_write" got 900 crashes in 81 days but still unable to find a reproducer. Dmitry tried to reproduce locally with debug printk() patches but not yet successful. I think that testing with http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f91e1c82-9693-cca3-4ab7-ecd9d9881fb4@i-love.sakura.ne.jp on linux.git or linux-next.git is the only realistic way for debugging this bug. More we postpone revival of the linux-next, more syzbot reports we will get...
| |