From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751623AbdKTQLf (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:11:35 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45786 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751590AbdKTQLd (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:11:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:29 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Tom Gall Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux- stable , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, ltp@lists.linux.it, shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS Message-ID: <20171120161029.GA2188@rei> References: <5E1947BC-9D22-42EB-BA29-96EA15A9C817@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5E1947BC-9D22-42EB-BA29-96EA15A9C817@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > So why didn???t we report these? As mentioned we???ve been tossing out dodgy > test cases to get to a clean baseline. We don???t need or want noise. > > For LTS, I want the system when it detects a failure to enable a quick > bisect involving the affected test bucket. Given the nature of kernel > bugs tho, there is that class of bug which only happens occasionally. >>From my experience debugging kernel bugs requires an actuall human interaction and there is only certain level of automation that can be achieved. Don't take me wrong, automatic bisection and other bells and whistles are a nice to have, but at the end of the day you usually need someone to reproduce/look at the problem, possibly check the source code, report a bug, etc. Hence it does not make much sense to have an automated system without dedicated engineers assigned to review the test results. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz