On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck <gro...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on >> syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many >> trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a >> staging area before upstream tree, with the intention that patches are >> _tested_ there, is they are not tested there, bugs enter upstream >> tree. And then it takes much longer to get fix into other trees. >> >> So the question is: what trees/branches should be tested? Preferably >> in priority order as syzbot can't test all of them. >> > > I always thought that -next existed specifically to give people a > chance to test the code in it. Maybe the question is where to report > the test results ?
FTR, from Guenter on another thread: > Interesting. Assuming that refers to linux-next, not linux-net, that > may explain why linux-next tends to deteriorate. I wonder if I should > drop it from my testing as well. I'll be happy to follow whatever the > result of this exchange is and do the same. If we agree on some list of important branches, and what branches specifically should not be tested with automatic reporting, I think it will benefit everybody. +Fengguang, can you please share your list and rationale behind it?