On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:56 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Guenter Roeck <gro...@google.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> 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.
Sure, go ahead. Guenter
