On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:03:52AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> We actually already test LKML patch in that way (Xiaolong maintains
> this feature). Nevertheless if developers specify "base-commit:" it
> could help eliminate the guessing works by the dumb robot. We'll
> appreciate if the
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:03:52AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> We actually already test LKML patch in that way (Xiaolong maintains
> this feature). Nevertheless if developers specify "base-commit:" it
> could help eliminate the guessing works by the dumb robot. We'll
> appreciate if the
Hi Borislav,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 02:50:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:06:51AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Yes if we add it as a line below the branch URL, it could be a time saver.
Right.
Since it's hard to teach ALL people about the rule, it'd be best if
Hi Borislav,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 02:50:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:06:51AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Yes if we add it as a line below the branch URL, it could be a time saver.
Right.
Since it's hard to teach ALL people about the rule, it'd be best if
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:06:51AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Yes if we add it as a line below the branch URL, it could be a time saver.
Right.
> Since it's hard to teach ALL people about the rule, it'd be best if we
> can work w/o any rules -- unless you want to be accurate or to
> customize
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:06:51AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Yes if we add it as a line below the branch URL, it could be a time saver.
Right.
> Since it's hard to teach ALL people about the rule, it'd be best if we
> can work w/o any rules -- unless you want to be accurate or to
> customize
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 01:10:47AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hey Fengguang,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:29:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
showed as this in future:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 01:10:47AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hey Fengguang,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:29:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
showed as this in future:
Hey Fengguang,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:29:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
> showed as this in future:
>
>
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
How about
Hey Fengguang,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:29:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
> showed as this in future:
>
>
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
How about
Hi Borislav,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:48:00PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Guys,
please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Greetings,
0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
Hi Borislav,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:48:00PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Guys,
please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Greetings,
0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
Guys,
please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
>
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
>
Guys,
please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
>
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
