On 08/08, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 22:02:42 +0800, kernel test robot said: > >> FYI, we noticed the following commit: >> >> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux >> Nicholas-Krause/fs-Fix-kmemleak-leak-warning-in-getname_flags-about-working-on-unitialized-memory/20160804-055054 >> commit 45ec18d5c713bccb9807782f0dca29b92ba99784 ("fs:Fix kmemleak leak >> warning in getname_flags about working on unitialized memory") > >The real question here is why the 0day system was even bothering to try >compiling and booting a patch from somebody who has a long record of failing >to do so with patches before submission. Actually looking at the patch >in question shows that little or no thought or testing was done (hint: >look at it, and wonder in amazement why there's a dump_stack() call where >it is....) > >In other words - how did this patch get into a tree that 0day listens to?
0Day has a service to automatically capture every patchset sent to LKML, and convert email patchset to git branches by applying them on top of different trees heuristically.
