On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> >>>> Sometimes the branches on linux-next are experimental crap. If someone >>>> adds an experimental memory allocator to linux-next before discovering >>>> it causes all kinds of problems I don't want bug reports about my code >>>> not being able to allocate memory because the memory allocator was bad. >>>> >>>> If you don't have the resources to test the individual branches of >>>> linux-next please just test Linus's tree. That will be much more >>>> meaningful and productive. >>> >>> I have to agree with Eric here, the reason why Fengguang Wu's 0-day >>> testing robot is much better received by developers is that he does >>> not test linux-net, >> > > 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. > > Guenter > >> I will remove linux-next if there is a general agreement that it's not >> useful. Though, I've heard different opinions from kernel developers >> as well. I will write a separate email asking what branches should be >> tested.
Let's please move discussion of this topic to "what trees/branches to test on syzbot" thread. This thread is now about too many things. Hope you don't mind if I repost your last email there.
