On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 09:44:32PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> > > Wu, is there a tag one can include to ward off this patch sucking robot
> > > prematurely?
> >
> > Yes. The best way may be to push the patches to a git tree known to
> > 0day robot:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/linux
> >
> > So that it's tested first there. You'll then get private email reports
> > if it's a private git branch.
>
> Right, but if I can't be bothered to compile test a patch, I also cannot
> be bothered to stuff it into git :-)
OK, that's understandable.
> > We may also add a rule: only send private reports for patches with
> > "RFC", "Not-yet-signed-off-by:", etc.
>
> How about not building when there's no "^Signed-off-by:" at all?
That's a good idea: no need to test quick demo-of-idea patches.
> Even private build fails for patches like this -- esp. 3+ -- gets
> annoying real quick.
>
> Also note that this 'patch' has: $subject ~ /^Re:/, nor did it have
> "^Subject:" like headers in the body.
That's good clues, too. So how about make the rule
Skip test if no "^Signed-off-by:" and Subject =~ /^Re:/
For a patch posted inside a discussion thread, as long as it have
"^Signed-off-by:", I guess the author is serious and the patch could
be tested seriously.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
