On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > 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?
https://github.com/fengguang/lkp-tests, more specifically https://github.com/fengguang/lkp-tests/tree/master/repo/linux Guenter
