Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)

Al Viro
2020-03-04T00:24:40Z

On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:48:31PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> > I hope it gets serious beating, though - it touches pretty much every
> > codepath in pathname resolution. Is there any way to sic the bots on
> > a branch, short of "push it into -next and wait for screams"?
>
> Last I looked pushing a branch to kernel.org was enough for the
> kbuild bots. Sending patches to LKML is also enough for those bots.
>
> I don't know if that kind of bot is what you need testing your code.

Build bots are generally nice, but in this case... pretty much all of
the changes are in fs/namei.c, which is not all that sensitive to
config/architecture/whatnot. Sure, something like "is audit enabled?"
may affect the build problems, but not much beyond that.

What was that Intel-run(?) bot that posts "such-and-such metrics has
42% regression on such-and-such commit" from time to time?
<checks>
Subject: [locking/qspinlock] 7b6da71157: unixbench.score 8.4% improvement
seems to be the latest of that sort,
From: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>

Not sure how much of pathwalk-heavy loads is covered by profiling
bots of that sort, unfortunately... ;-/